15 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Not Just Math and English: Courses That Pose Obstacles to Community College Completion
Discussions of the barriers to completion in community colleges have largely focused on student success in introductory college-level math and English courses, and rightfully so, since these courses are typically required for degrees. However, there is a much broader range of courses that also serve as “gatekeepers” in the sense that they are obstacles to completion. This paper offers methods for identifying these courses and for assessing the relative extent of the obstacle to completion each of them poses. We compare the performance in these courses of students who successfully completed a credential with those who did not. We find that the difficulty students experience in succeeding in many other introductory courses is just as great as that posed by college math and English. If colleges want to reduce impediments to graduation, they therefore need to look at a broader range of courses than just math and English and devise strategies for improving student achievement in these courses as well. We also find that overall GPA in college courses is a stronger predictor of completion than performance in any one course. This suggests that colleges need to monitor students’ overall performance to identify those who are in danger of not completing and design academic and non-academic interventions to help them succeed. Conversely, colleges need also to identify students who did well in these obstacle courses but have dropped out, so that they can encourage them to continue. It also suggests that remedial instruction, which is typically focused on math and English, should be rethought and its scope broadened
Recommended from our members
Do Student Success Courses Actually Help Community College Students Succeed?
Many first-time college students arrive on campus unprepared to succeed in college. This is especially the case at community colleges, which pursue an “open door” mission of serving all students, regardless of prior educational background. According to a survey of degree-granting institutions by the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), 42 percent of entering first-time students at public two-year colleges in fall 2000 took at least one remedial course (or one “developmental” course; we use these terms interchangeably), compared to 20 percent of entering students at public four-year institutions. Among recent high school graduates who entered higher education through community colleges in the mid-1990s, over 60 percent took at least one remedial course (authors’ calculations based on the National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 [NELS: 88]). Underpreparation is typically viewed in terms of deficiencies in students’ basic academic skills, specifically in those skills integral to the reading, writing, and mathematics subject areas. Community college educators maintain, however, that many entering students are also unprepared in other important ways. It is widely believed that many students have poor study habits and lack clear goals for college and careers. Some experts contend that helping students address these non-academic deficiencies is just as important as helping them acquire basic academic skills through remedial classes, which typically do not address issues such as study skills, goal setting, and the like (Boylan, 2002;Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991)
Recommended from our members
Educational Outcomes of I-BEST, Washington State Community and Technical College System's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program: Findings from a Multivariate Analysis
Nationally, relatively few of the more than 2.5 million adults who enroll annually in basic skills programs advance successfully to college-level coursework. This limits the ability of such individuals to secure jobs that pay family-supporting wages and that offer opportunities for career advancement. This paper presents findings from a study conducted by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, on the outcomes of the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training program, or I-BEST, an innovative program developed by the community and technical colleges in Washington State to increase the rate at which adult basic skills students enter and succeed in postsecondary occupational education and training. Under the I-BEST model, basic skills instructors and college-level career-technical faculty jointly design and teach college-level occupational courses for adult basic skills students. Instruction in basic skills is thereby integrated with instruction in college-level career-technical skills. The I-BEST model challenges the conventional notion that basic skills instruction ought to be completed by students prior to starting college-level courses. The approach thus offers the potential to accelerate the transition of adult basic skills students to college programs. The CCRC study reported on here used multivariate analysis to compare the educational outcomes over a two-year tracking period of I-BEST students with those of other basic skills students, including students who comprise a particularly apt comparison group—those non-I-BEST basic skills students who nonetheless enrolled in at least one workforce course in academic year 2006““07, the period of enrollment in the study. The researchers examined data on more than 31,000 basic skills students in Washington State, including nearly 900 I-BEST participants. The analyses controlled for observed differences in background characteristics of students in the sample. The study found that students participating in I-BEST achieved better educational outcomes than did other basic skills students, including those who enrolled in at least one non-I-BEST workforce course. I-BEST students were more likely than others to: Continue into credit-bearing coursework; Earn credits that count toward a college credential; Earn occupational certificates; and Make point gains on basic skills tests. On all the outcomes examined, I-BEST students did moderately or substantially better than non-I-BEST basic skills students in general. The I-BEST group's comparative advantage relative to non-I-BEST basic skills students who enrolled in at least one workforce course was not as large, but it was still significant. The study also compared I-BEST students to a group of non-participants with similar characteristics who were matched with the I-BEST students using a statistical technique called propensity score matching (PSM). Using the PSM analysis, the study estimated that over the two-year tracking period, the probability that I-BEST students would earn at least one college credit was 90 percent, while the probability for the matched students was 67 percent, a 23 percentage point difference. I-BEST students earned, on average, an estimated 52 quarter-term college credits, compared to an average of 34 quarter-term credits for the matched comparison group. I-BEST students had a higher probability of persisting into the second year: 78 percent, compared to 61 percent for the matched group. The chances of earning an occupational certificate was 55 percent for I-BEST students, compared with only 15 percent for the matched group. I-BEST students also had a higher likelihood of making point gains on the CASAS basic skills test: 62 percent compared with 45 percent for the matched group. While the results of this analysis show that participation in I-BEST is correlated with better educational outcomes over the two-year tracking period, it is important to note that they do not provide definitive evidence that the I-BEST program caused the superior outcomes. It could be that because of the way students are selected into the program, those who participate have higher motivation or other characteristics not measured in this study that make them more likely to succeed. Selection bias could also operate in the other direction if I-BEST students are more disadvantaged in ways we do not measure. In the future, CCRC researchers plan to conduct fieldwork to better understand the process by which students are selected into the program. CCRC will also extend this study by examining degree attainment and labor force outcomes of I-BEST students over a longer timeframe, by collecting financial data to estimate program cost-effectiveness, and by examining the practices of I-BEST programs that produce superior outcomes
Recommended from our members
Building Bridges to Postsecondary Training for Low-Skill Adults: Outcomes of Washington State's I-BEST Program
Each year, community colleges, schools, and community organizations offer basic skills instruction to more than 2.5 million adults with limited skills and education. Such programs include Adult Basic Education (ABE) and GED preparation programs for individuals who do not have a high school credential and English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) programs for persons with limited proficiency in English. Yet few of these students advance successfully to college-level education and training, even when they attend a basic skills program offered by a community college. Not doing so limits the potential of these individuals to secure jobs that pay family-supporting wages and that offer opportunities for career advancement. Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training, or I-BEST, is an innovative program created to address this problem. First piloted in 2004-05, I-BEST was developed by the community and technical colleges in Washington State to increase the rate at which adult basic skills students enter and succeed in postsecondary occupational education and training. Under the I-BEST model, basic skills instructors and career-technical faculty jointly design and teach college-level occupational, or what in Washington State are called "workforce," courses for adult basic skills students. Instruction in basic skills is thereby integrated with instruction in college-level career-technical skills. This model challenges the conventional notion that basic skills instruction should be completed by students prior to starting college-level courses. The approach thus offers the potential to accelerate the transition of adult basic skills students into college programs. This Brief, which summarizes a longer paper, presents findings from a CCRC study that investigated the outcomes of students who participated in the program. The study compared, over a two-year tracking period, the educational outcomes of I-BEST students with those of other basic skills students, including students who comprised a particularly apt comparison group — those non-I-BEST basic skills students who nonetheless enrolled in at least one workforce course in academic year 2006-07, the period of enrollment examined in the study. The analyses controlled for observed differences in background characteristics and enrollment patterns of students in the sample. We examined data on more than 31,000 basic skills students in Washington State, including nearly 900 I-BEST participants
Recommended from our members
Washington State's Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training Program (I-BEST): New Evidence of Effectiveness
In response to the low rates at which adult basic skills students advance to and succeed in college-level occupational programs, the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) developed the Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training, or I-BEST. In the I-BEST model, a basic skills instructor and an occupational instructor team teach occupational courses with integrated basic skills content, and students receive college-level credit for the occupational coursework. In this study, we examined the impact of I-BEST on students enrolled in the program in 2006““07 and 2007““08. We measured seven educational outcome variables: (1) whether a student earned any college credit (of any kind), (2) whether a student earned any occupational college credit, (3) the number of college credits a student earned, (4) the number of occupational college credits a student earned, (5) whether or not a student persisted to the following year after initial enrollment, (6) whether a student earned a certificate or degree, and (7) whether a student achieved point gains on basic skills tests. We also examined two labor market outcomes: the change in wages for those who were employed both before and after program enrollment, and the change in the number of hours worked after leaving the program. We found that enrollment in I-BEST had positive impacts on all but one of the educational outcomes (persistence was not affected), but no impact on the two labor market outcomes. However, I-BEST students in our sample were entering the labor market just as the economy was entering a major recession, and perhaps a future evaluation will reveal better labor market outcomes. We performed a difference-in-differences (DID) analysis and found that students who attended colleges with I-BEST after the program was implemented were 7.5 percentage points more likely to earn a certificate within three years and almost 10 percentage points more likely to earn some college credits, relative to students who were not exposed to I-BEST. Unlike the regression and PSM analyses we carried out, the DID approach allows us to make causal inferences about the effectiveness of I-BEST. The DID findings are especially impressive given that they are based on the effects of I-BEST during their first year of implementation at the subset of colleges offering the "treatment" examined. We assume that the effectiveness of the I-BEST model will improve as colleges gain more experience with it
Recommended from our members
Strategies for Promoting Gatekeeper Course Success Among Students Needing Remediation: Research Report for the Virginia Community College System
The Virginia Community College System (VCCS) is engaged in a strategic planning process to improve performance beyond the goals in Dateline 2009, the system’s current vision and plan. A key objective is to encourage colleges to improve retention and academic success for students, particularly the substantial numbers who arrive unprepared for college-level work. Specifically, the VCCS seeks to improve the rates at which underprepared students complete developmental coursework and advance to take and pass college courses, particularly the initial college-level, or “gatekeeper,” math and English offerings. The VCCS asked the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Teachers College, Columbia University, to conduct analyses to inform its efforts to improve student outcomes. In response, CCRC designed a study to address the following question: What student characteristics, course-taking patterns, and other factors are associated with higher probabilities that students who require remediation will take and pass college-level math and English? The dataset used by CCRC, provided by the VCCS, contained information on 24,140 first-time college students who enrolled in a VCCS college in summer or fall 2004. It included information on student demographics, institutions attended, placement test scores and placement recommendations, transcript data on courses and grades, and information on educational attainment (including transfer to four-year institutions and certificates and associate degrees earned). Students were followed for four years, through the 2008 summer term. CCRC examined a range of educational outcomes, including: whether students took and passed development courses and gatekeeper English and math, the number of terms they were enrolled, the number of credits they accumulated, and whether they earned educational awards (certificates and associate degrees) or transferred to four-year institutions. This report presents the main findings from CCRC’s study and outlines suggestions for steps that the VCCS and its member colleges might take to improve completion of gatekeeper courses by the many students who enter the state’s community colleges poorly prepared to succeed in college-level work