seems necessary. What the University of Minnesota established as a College” program “General in 1932 has now evolved into an expectation for incoming students and an orientation and remediation program to ensure preparedness that is as multifaceted as the kaleidoscope of students who enter it (Glessner, 2015). Defining college success is one issue of concern. For Bahr (2012) the view was five terms beyond remediation of continued enrollment. For Crisp and Delgado (2014), the achievement was graduation within a set period that was program dependent. Camara (2013) points to completion of follow-on coursework, completion of program in a specific time period, exemption or completion of remediation or developmental programs, and grades. Others, such as Trammell (2009), Bahr (2013), and Venezia and Hughes (2013) consider the sense of achievement from the student to be the deciding characteristic of collegiate success. Regardless of the outcome, for these students, the emplacement in remedial coursework is an issue in and of itself. Romano (2012) found that part of the issue was that at the beginning of the term, the huge numbers of students enrolling in remedial coursework meant some were unable to enroll due to limited spaces. However, with a drop rate of over 50% in those courses within three weeks, schools could not justify more courses to enroll more students. In many ways, consideration of the effectiveness of remedial education is about the money. The significant funding required for developmental education attracts much attention (Melguizo, Kosiewicz, Prather, & Bos, 2014). Brothen and Wambach (2012) posit that students deserve the opportunities and that funding remediation is a small price for their success. Further, Brothen and Wambach (2012) suggest follow-on placement testing to those who fall short of the set score on the ACT or SAT as being well worth the investment in student success; though some
seems necessary. What the University of Minnesota established as a “General College” program in 1932 has now evolved into an expectation for incoming students and an orientation and remediation program to ensure preparedness that is as multifaceted as the kaleidoscope of students who enter it (Glessner, 2015). Defining college success is one issue of concern. For Bahr (2012) the view was five terms beyond remediation of continued enrollment. For Crisp and Delgado (2014), the achievement was graduation within a set period that was program dependent. Camara (2013) points to completion of follow-on coursework, completion of program in a specific time period, exemption or completion of remediation or developmental programs, and grades. Others, such as Trammell (2009), Bahr (2013), and Venezia and Hughes (2013) consider the sense of achievement from the student to be the deciding characteristic of collegiate success. Regardless of the outcome, for these students, the emplacement in remedial coursework is an issue in and of itself. Romano (2012) found that part of the issue was that at the beginning of the term, the huge numbers of students enrolling in remedial coursework meant some were unable to enroll due to limited spaces. However, with a drop rate of over 50% in those courses within three weeks, schools could not justify more courses to enroll more students. In many ways, consideration of the effectiveness of remedial education is about the money. The significant funding required for developmental education attracts much attention (Melguizo, Kosiewicz, Prather, & Bos, 2014). Brothen and Wambach (2012) posit that students deserve the opportunities and that funding remediation is a small price for their success. Further, Brothen and Wambach (2012) suggest follow-on placement testing to those who fall short of the set score on the ACT or SAT as being well worth the investment in student success; though some
Davis_Deborah_Proposal_05-31-2017.docx