The Effects of Remedial Course Offerings
on Student Outcomes at a 2-Year College.
Viktor Brenner, Ph.D.
Waukesha County Technical College
Remedial Education at WCTC
1995-2006: Program Readiness
 Individual programs set ASSET and later COMPASS cutoff
scores for program-readiness
 Students entering a program below program ready levels
were placed on “In Remediation” status
 Allowed to take up to 12 credits towards their program while
 Remedial instruction offered as individual or small group
self-paced instruction
Problems with Program Readiness
 Used ASSET/COMPASS in a way that is not validated
 Test predicts success in first-semester college courses
 ASSET/COMPASS scores did NOT predict program outcomes
 Program readiness tied to programs not courses
 Magnified heterogeneity of student skill levels in classrooms
 Exceptions and extensions to the 12-credit rule common
 Remedial offerings require a lot of self-direction
Prepared Learner Initiative
 Wisconsin Technical College System
 Uniform “General College” remedial courses as pre-requisites
for General Education
 WCTC implemented remedial courses in waves
 Writing, Spring 2008
 Reading, Fall 2008
 Multiple-baseline evaluation of remedial offerings
Four-Pronged Evaluation of “General
College” Remedial Courses
 Are students more successful with remedial courses?
 Does student success improve in “target” courses with
General College pre-requisites?
 Are students in remedial courses retained?
 Do students in remedial courses enroll directly in courses that
have pre-requisites?
 Does having to take a remedial course inhibit students from
enrolling?
A Success Story
Intro to College Writing and Written Communication
Student Outcomes in Remedial Course
100%
100%
Remedial Writing Outcomes-Fall
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
Remedial Writing Outcomes-Spring
0%
Fall 2006 (WR)
Passing
Fall 2007 (WR)
B or better
Fall 2008 (ICW)
C or better/S
Fall 2009 (ICW)
WD/NG
Writing Readiness grades were either S, NG or WD
Intro College Writing is graded using full grading scale
Spring 2007 (WR)
Passing
Spring 2008 (ICW)
B or better
C or better/S
Spring 2009 (ICW)
WD/NG
Student Outcomes in Written
Communication
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall 2006
Spring 2007
Passing
Fall 2007
Successful
Spring 2008
B or better
Fall 2008
WD or Drop
Spring 2009
Failing
Fall 2009
Retention of Remedial Writing Students
Spring-Fall
100%
100%
90%
90%
Retained Spring-Fall
Retained Fall-Spring
Fall-Spring
80%
70%
60%
50%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Successful
Passing
F/WD
Overall
Successful
Passing
F/WD
Overall
Remedial Writing Course Outcome
Remedial Writing Course Outcome
Green=Writing Readiness Rust = Intro College Writing
Green=Writing Readiness Rust = Intro College Writing
Direct Enrollment of Remedial
Students into Written Communication
Spring-Fall
Enrolled in Written Comm Summer/Fall
Enrolled in Written Comm in Spring
Fall-Spring
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Successful
Passing
F/W/NG
Fall Remedial Writing Course Outcome
Green=Writing Readiness Rust = Intro College Writing
Successful
Passing
F/W/NG
Spring Remedial Writing Course Outcome
Green=Writing Readiness Rust = Intro College Writing
Overview
 Students are more successful in the General College remedial
writing course
 Student success in Written Communication returned from a
drop-off to Fall 2006 levels
 Students more likely to be retained the following term
 More than twice as many students enrolled directly in
Written Communication the following term
 Fewer unprepared students enrolled
A Less Successful Story
Intro College Reading & Study Skills for Science, Social Science and
Communication
Remedial Course Success
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Fall 2005 (RPR)
Spring 2006
(RPR)
B or better
Fall 2006 (RPR)
C/S
Spring 2007
(RPR)
C-/D
Fall 2007 (RPR)
F
Spring 2008
(RPR)
W/NG/Drop
Fall 2008
(ICRSS)
Pass Rate
Spring 2009
(ICRSS)
Fall 2009
(ICRSS)
Success Rate
General Education Course Outcomes
Intro Ethics
Economics
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
200620 200710 200720 200810 200820 200910 200920 201010
Passing Rate
Success Rate
B or Better
WD/Drop
Intro Sociology
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
200610 200620 200710 200720 200810 200820 200910 200920 201010
Passing Rate
Success Rate
B or Better
WD/Drop
0%
200610 200620 200710 200720 200810 200820 200910 200920 201010
Passing Rate
Success Rate
B or Better
WD/Drop
Psychology
of Human Relations
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
200610 200620 200710 200720 200810 200820 200910 200920 201010
Passing Rate
Success Rate
B or Better
WD/Drop
Retention of Remedial Reading Students
Spring-Fall
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
Retained in Fall
Retained in Spring
Fall-Spring
70%
60%
50%
40%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Successful
Passing
F
WD/Drop
Fall Remedial Course Outcome
Green = Reading Program Readiness
Rust= Intro College Reading & Study Skills
Overall
Successful
Passing
F
WD/Drop
Spring Remedial Course Outcome
Green = Reading Program Readiness
Rust= Intro College Reading & Study Skills
Overall
Direct Enrollment of Remedial Reading
Students in General Education
Fall-Spring
Spring-Fall
60%
60%
Enrolled in Gen Ed in Fall
Enrolled in Gen Ed in Spring
70%
50%
40%
30%
50%
40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Successful
Passing
Fail
WD/Drop
Fall Remedial Course Outcome
Green = Reading Program Readiness
Rust= Intro College Reading & Study Skills
Overall
Successful
Passing
Fail
WD/Drop
Spring Remedial Course Outcome
Green = Reading Program Readiness
Rust= Intro College Reading & Study Skills
Overall
Remedial Reading Outcomes
 Students are less successful in Intro College Reading & Study
Skills than they were before
 No noticeable effect on General Education courses
 Student retention is essentially the same, but more likely to
enroll directly in Gen Eds
 Includes almost half of students that failed
 Students (N=65) improved significantly on COMPASS re-
test at the end of the course
 Average pretest of 69.5, average post-test of 80.9
What’s Going On With Reading?
100
Pre-test
90
Post-test
80
without being successful in
the course
 Top performers were above
70
COMPASS-Reading Score
 Students improved in reading
cutoff from the start
 Average post-test above
cutoff for every grade
60
50
40
 Hypothesis: domain of
course broader than test
30
20
 New curriculum this Spring
 Looking to replace with
10
0
B
C
D
ICRSS Final Grade
F
reading-only course
Enrollment Yield
Does having a remedial requirement reduce the likelihood of student
enrollment?
Lost Before They Start?
 Inside Higher Ed (Jaschik 2009) report on Bailey et al (2008)
 Of students 3 or more levels below college-ready, 40% don’t
enroll in the first remedial course
 Only 3-4 in 10 students complete a remedial course sequence
 What are the baselines?
 Do remedial requirements make students less likely to start?
 If so, why?
 Enrollment Yield: percent of students tested that enrolled in
program-level courses the next semester
 Next semester: Feb1-Aug31 = Fall, Sept1-Jan31 = Spring
Probability of Enrolling and COMPASSReading Score
 Regression
90%
Discontinuity
80%
70%
 Calcagno (2008, 2009)
60%
 Students scoring 75-81
5% more likely to
enroll than students
scoring 68-74
50%
40%
30%
Enrolled
20%
10%
Pre-discontinutity
Post-discontinuity
0%
100 97 94 91 88 85 82 79 76 73 70 67 64 61 58 55 52 49 46 43 40 37 34 31
 Big picture: is it
different above and
below 75?
What is Really Going On?
Which is a
better fit?
• Linear:
progressively
less likely to
enroll
• Barrier: each
additional
requirement
reduces yield
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Enrolled
20%
Linear Model
Barrier Model
10%
0%
100 97
94
91
88
85
82
79
76
73
70
67
64
61
58
55
52
49
46
43
40
37
34
31
Enrollment Yield and COMPASS-Writing
Enrollment Yield by Grouped
Scores
Distribution of Scores
700
90%
80%
600
70%
500
60%
400
50%
40%
300
30%
200
20%
100
10%
0
98 93 88 81 75 70 60 51 43 36 29 22 14
7
1
0%
99
95
85-89
76
69-70
56
35-42
25
12-16
6
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Common Scores
Uncommon Score Clusters
10%
0%
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
Can Someone Explain This?
Students with “common” scores more likely to enroll than
students with “uncommon” scores!
15
10
5
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
Common Scores
30%
Uncommon Score Clusters
Linear-Common
20%
Linear-Uncommon
Barrier-Common
10%
Barrier-Uncommon
0%
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Linear or Barrier Model?
Do remedial requirements deter enrollment, or are students that
need remediation also less likely to enroll?
10
5
Requirements have Changed, Yield
Patterns Have Not
100%
100%
Fall Enrollment Yield-Writing
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
96+
91-95
85-90
77-84
68-76
59-67
43-58
23-42
<23
Spring Enrollment Yield-Writing
0%
96+
91-95
85-90
77-84
68-76
59-67
43-58
23-42
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2005-08 Avg
2006-07
2005-06
2005-07 Avg
2008-10 Avg
2007-10 Avg
<23
Yield Patterns in Reading
100%
100%
Fall Enrollment Yield-Reading
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
Spring Enrollment Yield-Reading
0%
96+
90-95
86-89
82-85
75-81
61-74
40-60
<40
96+
90-95
86-89
82-85
75-81
61-74
40-60
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2005-08 Avg
2006-07
2005-06
2005-08 Avg
2008-10 Avg
2008-10 Avg
<40
Summary
 Prepared Learner Initiative
 Students in the new remedial courses were more likely to be retained
and enroll directly in target courses
 Success in the remedial course itself differed by subject
 No observable difference in target course performance
 Enrollment Yield
 Seems to fit linear pattern
 Introduction of hard pre-requisites has not led to a decline in
enrollment yield
 Interpretation: students are not less likely to enroll if they are required to
take remedial courses; students with lesser basic skills are progressively less
likely to enroll
 Next step: understand the frequent/infrequent score yield
disparity in COMPASS-Writing
References
 Bailey, Thomas; Jeong, Dong Wook; & Cho, Sung-Woo (2008). Referral,




Enrollment and Completion in Developmental Education Sequences in Community
Colleges. Community College Research Center Working Paper #15, available
from CCRC at ccrc.tc.columbia.edu
Calcagno, Juan Carlos & Long, Bridget Terry (April 2008). “The Impact of
Postsecondary Remediation Using a Regression Discontinuity Approach: Addressing
Endogenous Sorting and Noncompliance. National Center for Postsecondary
Research Working Paper, available online from NCPR at
www.postsecondaryresearch.org
Calcagno, Juan Carlos & Long, Bridget Terry (August 2009). “Evaluating the
Impact of Remedial Education in Florida Community Colleges: A Quasi-Experimental
Regression Discontinuity Design.” National Center for Postsecondary Research
Brief, available online from NCPR at www.postsecondaryresearch.org
Jaschik, Scott (January 19, 2009). “Lost Before They Start.” Inside Higher Ed,
available online at www.insidehighered.com /news /2009/01/19/remedial
Mohn, Lavonne. Personal communication, April 19-April 21, 2010.
Contacts
 Email author: vbrenner@wctc.edu
 Copies of this presentation:
 College Advancement IR Reports: www.wctc.edu/ca
>Research Reports
 Under session information on the Forum Scheduler; link from
http://www.airweb.org/?page=1967