continuing in college (Pruett & Absher, 2015). Gajewski and Mather (2015) point out that integrated remedial programs have been repeatedly shown to be more successful in terms of retention that any program working in isolation. Students do not generally enter college with the intention of dropping out of school. The goal then, is to keep the student engaged in the process. For students in remedial courses, that goal is complicated. Many have learning disabilities diagnosed or undiagnosed that they may or may not want to self-reveal during – – orientation or enrollment processes (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). The general stresses of change among college freshmen are magnified within these students, and coping mechanisms get lost in the shuffle. In a strong remedial education program, students learn more than reading literacy and comprehension. They learn self-management, self-evaluation strategies, and goal-orientated thinking (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). In that same study of motivation factors, including self-efficacy, it was found that perceptions of self as learners had as much or more impact on retention as learning the skill sets incumbent in literacy and comprehension. While a variety of techniques exist and are employed, the issue frequently seems to settle about the students’ perception of self upon assignment to remediation (Perun, 2015). Whatever skills those students thought they had mastered to get through high school seem not to work in college. Revision is no longer optional, it is required. For some, it is a matter of knowing the pathways and they are frequently technological pathways of a different map (Relles & – – Tierney, 2013). While students may be and presumably it often seems “millennial” “tech-savvy,” their skills fall short of Blackboard® online collaborative learning tool or Microsoft Word®. It behooves the university that plans on distributing students among developmental coursework to intervene with the tools to succeed. like smart phones are ubiquitous, practical “While “gadgets”
continuing in college (Pruett & Absher, 2015). Gajewski and Mather (2015) point out that integrated remedial programs have been repeatedly shown to be more successful in terms of retention that any program working in isolation. Students do not generally enter college with the intention of dropping out of school. The goal then, is to keep the student engaged in the process. For students in remedial courses, that goal is complicated. Many have learning disabilities – diagnosed or undiagnosed – that they may or may not want to self-reveal during orientation or enrollment processes (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). The general stresses of change among college freshmen are magnified within these students, and coping mechanisms get lost in the shuffle. In a strong remedial education program, students learn more than reading literacy and comprehension. They learn self-management, self-evaluation strategies, and goal-orientated thinking (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). In that same study of motivation factors, including self-efficacy, it was found that perceptions of self as learners had as much or more impact on retention as learning the skill sets incumbent in literacy and comprehension. While a variety of techniques exist and are employed, the issue frequently seems to settle about the students’ perception of self upon assignment to remediation (Perun, 2015). Whatever skills those students thought they had mastered to get through high school seem not to work in college. Revision is no longer optional, it is required. For some, it is a matter of knowing the pathways – and they are frequently technological pathways – of a different map (Relles & Tierney, 2013). While students may be “millennial” and presumably “tech-savvy,” it often seems their skills fall short of Blackboard® online collaborative learning tool or Microsoft Word®. It behooves the university that plans on distributing students among developmental coursework to intervene with the tools to succeed. “While “gadgets” like smart phones are ubiquitous, practical
Davis_Deborah_20180226.docx