The Effectiveness of the Math Lab at a Private University in the Southeastern Region of the United States LaShante Walker, Starr Wallace, and Rick West
Acknowledgements
There are many people without whom this project would not have been possible to complete. First, we send a special thanks to our advisors Dr. Carrie Thornthwaite, Dr. Tammy Shutt, and Dr. Debi Hoggatt who pushed us to make this study as in-depth as possible and were constant encouragers throughout the many ups and downs of this work. Next, we’d like to thank our Juried Review Committee: Dr. Trace Hebert, Mary Catherine Sevier, Dr. Tammy Shutt, and Dr. Carrie Thornthwaite. Their comments and suggestions enhanced the scope of vision and flow of our work from its inception to its completion.
This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of our client, the Director of the Academic Success Center at a private university in the southeastern region of the United States, and the many students and faculty who gave their time to participate in our survey, focus groups, and interviews. Our collection of quantitative data would have been significantly impeded if not for the help of the Institutional Research staff at the university, who compiled our data, and the Director of the Academic Success Center, who made sure the data were scrubbed and anonymous.
Now to the many friends, family, and colleagues who have been models, encouragers, advisors, and aids, we express our gratitude for the support you have provided over the years: Dr. Jewel Brazelton, Mrs. Gail Claiborne, Dr. Darwin Mason, Stafford & Peggy McNamee, Mr. Mark Parman, Dr. Catherine Stephens, Dr. Joseph Walker III, and Mrs. Heather West.
Finally, we’d like to thank the members of our cohort, now friends who feel like family, who have been there to celebrate successes and encourage us through difficult times. This experience was made richer because we all walked side by side on this journey.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to determine if there was a relationship between the tutoring provided by the Math Lab in the Academic Success Center (ASC) at a private university in the southeastern region of the United States and the academic achievement of students who received tutoring. The study of this relationship included data analysis pertaining to age, GPA, ACT scores, commuter status, and athletic status. The study also involved interviews and focus groups in order to identify the perceptions of the math faculty, tutors, and students on the overall effectiveness of the Math Lab. These sources provided triangulation to validate emergent themes, conclusions, and recommendations that were grounded in data. Quantitative data revealed that tutoring provided in the Math Lab had little statistical significance on the final grade point average of students who used the Lab versus those that did not. Additionally, when holding the students’ Math ACT score as a covariate, the tutoring services did not have a statistical impact on students who were commuters, athletes, and non-traditional age college students. Qualitative data disclosed several emergent themes among the students being tutored, the Math Lab tutors, and Math Department faculty. While each entity generally believed the Math Lab tutoring was a positive element, all three believed there needed to be improvements made to the tutoring structure and facility, as well as better advertising, training, communication, and programming to make the tutoring more widespread and effective.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Context 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Purpose of the Study 5
Research Questions 5
Theoretical Framework 5
Scope and Bounds 8
Significance of the Study 9
Terms 9
Summary of Chapter 1 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
History of Higher Education 11
Importance of Math Education in Higher Education 13
Historical College Degree Completion 14 Implications of College Accessibility and Completion 15 Barriers to College Degree Attainment 17 Math as an Impediment to College Degree Attainment 21 Theoretical Framework of the Study 25
Various Student Success Interventions 33 Supplemental Instruction as an Intervention 35
Peer Tutoring as an Intervention 41
Other Interventions 44
Developmental/Remedial Mathematics Programs 46
Effectiveness of Interventions 49
Effectiveness of Peer Tutoring 54
University Remedial Math Policy 56
Methodological Considerations 59
Summary of Chapter 2 59
Chapter 3: Methodology 61
Purpose of the Study 61
Research Questions 61
Research Design 62
Null Hypotheses 63 Variables 64
Population and Sample 65
Participants 66 Students 66 Tutors 69
Math Department Faculty 69 Director of ASC 70 Data Collection Procedures 70
Instrumentation 71
Pilot Test 72 Focus Groups 73
Interviews 76 Data Analysis 76 Disposition of the Data 77
Summary of Chapter 3 77
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 79
Introduction 79
Research Question 1 80
Research Question 2 83
Questionnaire Results 84
Research Questions 3 and 4 87
Themes History 87 Physical Location 88 Tutoring 91 Ability 92 Staffing/Training 93 Scheduling 97 Tutor Availability 98
Math Lab Requirements 99
Advertising 101
Promotion 101
Communication 102
Math Lab Users 108
Need for Math Assistance 110
Math Lab Hours 111
Math Lab Success 112
Overall Perceptions 113
Summary of Chapter 4 115
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Discussion 116
Summary of the Study 116
Research Questions 117
Relationship of Findings to Previous Research 120
Discussion 122
Inferences from the Data 122
Recommendations to the Client 126
Limitations of the Study 132
Recommendations for Further Research 133
Summary of Chapter 5 135
Personal Reflections 135
References 138
Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent 146
Appendix B: Instrument 148 Appendix C: Focus Group Questions for Math Faculty 151
Appendix D: Focus Group Questions for Math Tutors 153 Appendix E: Focus Group Questions for Math Students 154 Appendix F: Document of Client Permission 156
List of Tables
Table 1: Math Lab Users 68
Table 2: One-Way ANCOVA- Math GPA by Math Lab Participation
Using Math ACT as a Covariate 81
Table 3: One-Way ANCOVA- Math GPA by Math Lab Participation
By Students Who Are Athletes Using Math ACT as a Covariate 82 Table 4: One-Way ANCOVA- Math GPA by Math Lab Participation
By Students Who Are Commuters Using Math ACT as a Covariate 82 Table 5: One-Way ANCOVA- Math GPA by Math Lab Participation
By Students Who Are Traditional Age Using Math ACT as a Covariate 83 Table 6: Frequency of Participation in the Math Lab 84 Table 7: Perceptions of Math Lab Participants:
Quality of Tutor and Tutoring Service 85
Table 8: Perceptions of Math Lab Participants:
Accessibility and Effectiveness 86
Chapter 1: Introduction
This research study was focused on the academic support services at a private university located in the southeastern region of the United States. The institution has seen many changes since its inception and maintains its mission with five core values: faith, community, knowledge, innovation, and service. The subject institution, who desired to remain anonymous for the purposes of this research study, has embraced the changing face of higher education and has adapted to the global educational marketplace while making a name for itself as an institution of high quality and excellent programming with dedicated faculty who work to produce exceptional graduates.
This research study took a closer look at the university’s Academic Success Center (ASC) which was established in 2012 as a support program for struggling students. The
researchers examined the ASC, specifically the Math Lab, and the students who have utilized the math tutoring services in correlation to student achievement as measured by the final math grade point average.
The importance of understanding mathematical concepts and possessing the ability to apply them in the real world cannot be overlooked. Mathematics is considered a core subject area and has historically been a difficult subject for some students which could result in mandatory developmental math class enrollment once they enter college. Historically, the number of students enrolled in developmental mathematics courses has been on the rise. Onwuengbuzie, Schneider, and Zientek (2014) collected data based on faculty perceptions of student success in mathematics and hypothesized factors that could influence the students academically, especially in mathematics. Onwuengbuzie et al. (2014) found, “For students, the need for remediation lengthens the time for and increases the cost of attaining a postsecondary degree. The cost is
expensive both for students and society” (p. 68). This high cost to students and society was just one of the many reasons to further investigate math as a barrier to college persistence and retention.
Statement of the Problem
Vincent Tinto (1975) conducted a landmark study and synthesis of the research on the persistence of college students and also formulated a theoretical model based on the work of Durkheim’s theory of suicide as it related to the phenomenon of college dropouts (p. 92). He hypothesized that students were more likely to drop out of college if they were not fully integrated into the collective collegiate society (p. 91). Tinto (1975) also postulated, “But, as colleges are made up of both social and academic systems, it is important to distinguish between normative and structural integration in the academic domain of the college from that in the social domain of the college” (p. 92). Tinto (1975) was a pioneer in the theoretical development of the model of student engagement as a solution to the increasing issue of college persistence and retention. He concluded that by engaging students socially and academically with both peers and faculty the likelihood of students actually completing their college degree could increase (p. 96).
Multiple studies by Tinto revealed that student involvement and time invested in the institution had a significant impact on student persistence and retention. Tinto’s work has revolved around the entire phenomenon of college student persistence as viewed through the lens of student engagement. This engagement may take on many forms, including social and academic engagement. Tinto’s studies found that students who were less engaged in their schooling were more likely to drop out of college, especially in the freshman year (1999). Literature reviewed for this research project revealed that difficulty with academic coursework, specifically math coursework, was a major reason students drop out of college
(Ugo, 2010). Students who were engaged in their own academic progress and success had higher persistence rates and are more likely to graduate. This research study resulted in broad indications that the student participation in the support services offered in the Math Lab at the Academic Success Center had a positive impact on the retention rate of the subject university. College and university student persistence to graduation is a vital goal of post-secondary institutions across the nation. According to information from the U.S. Department of
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), individuals of all age groups with at least a bachelor’s degree had a much lower level of unemployment than groups of persons without a bachelor’s degree (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Additionally, lifetime earnings vary widely for those who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree compared to those who did not. Specifically, in 2012 the median of earnings for young adults with a bachelor's degree was $46,900, while the median was $30,000 for those with a high school diploma but no bachelor’s degree (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
Other research performed by the NCES found that the 2012 graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree at a four-year degree granting institution in fall 2006 was 59% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2014). This means that on average, 41% of students who begin their college process at four-year schools do not finish to completion of their degree within six years of their enrollment. Schools such as the subject university must understand the reasons why these students do not complete their degree and take steps to correct this large number of college dropouts.
As reported by Vendituoli (2014), the Education Advisory Board found that of all students who drop out of college, about half do so before their second year (p. 2). It is therefore imperative that post-secondary institutions stay acutely aware of all students and their
progression towards college graduation, especially those who show potential signs of dropping out for any one (or more) of a variety of reasons. According to Ugo (2010), “Mathematics is one of the biggest obstacles to student success. Often incoming freshman are not prepared for college level mathematics and test into a developmental mathematics course or sequence of
developmental courses” (p. 50). Research by Hodara and Barton (2014) found that approximately 22% of students at private four-year colleges took a remedial math course as compared to fewer than 10% for remedial English (p. 1). This data showed an overall under-preparedness for the challenges of college math by American students. Colleges and universities have realized the lack of preparation new students will bring with them each year and most are creating action plans to combat this problem, mostly focusing on creation of remedial math classes. Bahr (2008), however, reported that 81.5% of students who attempted a developmental math course did not complete a degree or transfer to another school (p. 421). Universities must consider multiple options for ensuring the success of their students in mathematics.
The subject university offers two math remediation courses before students must take college algebra. Knowing that students who take remedial courses have a much higher
likelihood of dropping out of college, the university has devoted a significant amount of financial resources to the Academic Success Center (ASC) for the purpose of student achievement. One sub-component of the ASC is the Math Lab, which offers tutoring services for all students in the university. The Math Lab and the larger ASC are important components in the university’s plan to help students persist to college graduation. Therefore a clear understanding of the
effectiveness and perceptions of the services offered by the Math Lab is crucial in order to help the university attain both small and large-scale student success goals.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine if there was a relationship between the tutoring provided by the Math Lab in the ASC and the academic achievement of students who received tutoring as well as to identify potential enhancements to the math tutoring service provided. The study of this relationship included data analysis pertaining to age, GPA, ACT scores, commuter status, and athletic status. These variables were instrumental factors in the analysis of the academic achievement of the students who were utilizing services from the ASC. Research Questions
The research team designed four questions for this study: 1. To what degree does the Math Lab impact student success?
2. To what extent does the frequency of participation in the Math Lab impact student success?
3. How is the Math Lab perceived by students, tutors, faculty, and staff?
4. What are the perceptions of the faculty, tutors, and students on the effectiveness of the Math Lab and its services with Math Lab users and non-lab users?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of this study was based on multiple sources, including the landmark studies of theorists Vincent Tinto and Alexander Astin who “have developed theories based on or including student involvement as a key factor in students’ academic success” (Ugo, 2010, p. 2). Tinto (1999) stated that “most efforts to enhance student retention, though successful to some degree, have had more limited impact than they should or could” (p. 5). Tinto went on to explain that building the learning communities, which give students a sense of belonging and
creating engaging learning environments, could enhance a restructuring of the freshman experience.
Tinto also determined five conditions, “expectations, support, feedback, involvement, and learning” (p. 6) that supported retention. He stressed the importance of student involvement as a part of the overall college experience. Tinto also cautioned universities that tend to simply add developmental courses to the catalog of offerings in an effort to treat the problem of students not persisting to graduation, rather than truly addressing the root causes lack of retention. Tinto (1987) also stated, “Student departure may serve as a barometer of the social and intellectual health of institutional life as much as of students’ experiences in the institution” (p. 6). Martin and Arendale (1992) asserted that colleges and universities have opportunities to manipulate the environment and to provide opportunities for the students to integrate into the social and academic dimensions of the school. They further stated, “Rather than remain powerless… the institution can decide to make available resources and to change its campus environment” (p. 46).
Work by other theorists also shaped the framework of this study. Most notably, the work done by Martin and Arendale, creators of the Supplemental Instruction (SI) program, forged a path that undergirded the study in many ways. The SI program was created in the early 1970s and implemented in 1974 at the University of Missouri-Kansas City as an alternative to traditional tutoring programs to help college students succeed. Rather than target high-risk students, SI targets high-risk courses – those that traditionally had high rates of D or F final course grades and/or withdrawals (Martin & Arendale, 1992, p. 3). Martin and Arendale stated that the program had the direct goal of increasing student academic performance and had an indirect positive effect on student retention (p. 20). Research conducted and compiled by Martin
and Arendale showed that, regardless of ethnicity status or prior academic preparation, students who participated in a Supplemental Instruction program were more academically successful, persisted at a higher rate, and graduated at a higher rate than peers who did not participate in an SI program (p. 20-26). On more than one occasion the United States Department of Education has designated the Supplemental Instruction program as an Exemplary Education Program, validating SI’s claims of effectiveness in helping students achieve higher mean final course grades, succeed in high-risk courses, and persist at the institution at higher rates than non-SI students (p. 26).
The strategies utilized and emphasized in Supplemental Instruction were built from a number of theorists and their work. The creators of SI found basis in the theories of Jean Piaget, with particular attention to his ideas that learning must take place in order from the concrete to the more abstract (Piaget & Inhelder, 1958). Martin and Arendale (1992), the creators of SI, reasoned that students who appear to operate at the concrete level have difficulty processing unfamiliar (abstract) information, and therefore a program should be implemented that allows students to more readily move from the concrete to the abstract (p. 43). The type of program that was created (SI) was supported by the work of Keimig, (1983) who developed the “Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs.” Keimig’s (1983) hierarchy supported the SI concept in that it was a model that showed high potential for learning and instructional change because SI provided course-related learning services, the second highest level in Keimig’s model. It is also very important to note that Keimig’s model ranked certain types of interventions at the lower end of her hierarchy, notably remedial courses (lowest) and “learning assistance for individual students” (second lowest). This is important to note because the main avenues of academic assistance at the subject university are through remedial math courses and student tutoring
through the Academic Success Center. Keimig (1983) noted the following disadvantages with individual tutoring:
1. Because of its “drop-in” nature, it lacked systemic activity;
2. Tutoring failed to provide enough assistance soon enough to make a difference;
3. The assistance was too late since it generally came after academic difficulty or failure had been experienced; and
4. The students who needed tutoring the most generally used it the least.
The research and work done by these theorists laid the groundwork for the current study regarding the effectiveness of the tutoring services provided by the Math Lab in the Academic Success Center at the private subject university. It was important for the current research to be grounded in the theories of those who have come before, with specific emphasis on the research that provided evidence of programs that helped students successfully navigate the academic coursework they encountered. This would allow students to find not only academic success, but also persist in their college education until graduation from their chosen post-secondary
institution. The research and programs presented by the above theorists are important guideposts in evaluating the effectiveness of the Math Lab at the Academic Success Center of the subject university.
Scope and Bounds
The scope and bounds of this study were set after conferring with the director of the Academic Success Center of the subject university, the client for this research.
1. The study focused only on students taking math courses at the institution. More precisely, the population was those students who were enrolled in the university and completed a math course
during the 2014-2015 academic year and/or the tutoring services offered through the Math Lab in the university’s Academic Success Center.
2. The study did not focus on the specific types of tutor interventions and tutor training used by the ASC, but rather asked the Math Lab participants to describe the types of tutoring they received.
Significance of the Study
This study will contribute to the body of literature on academic support services and the impact they have on student success. The results of this study can also benefit other university learning centers that are working with struggling students in various subject areas. Both the overall university and the university’s Academic Success Center can gain insight from the study because of the valuable information pertaining to student retention, peer tutor effectiveness, and its impact on student achievement. The university’s math faculty, peer tutors, and students who have utilized the support services of the Math Lab at the ASC can also benefit from the access to information gained from this study.
Definition of Terms
According to the International Center for Supplemental Instruction, Supplemental Instruction (SI) was created at the University of Missouri-Kansas City by Dr. Deanna Martin in 1973. SI states the following regarding the program: Supplemental Instruction is an academic support program that targets historically difficult courses (Anderson, 2014, pp. 11-13).
The Academic Success Center (ASC), according to the university’s website, “provides students and faculty with a ‘one-stop shop’ for all the university’s academic support resources”.
The term academic success is the measurable improvement of a student as evidenced in the increased performance overall or in an academic subject area.
Summary of Chapter 1
In summary, Chapter 1 has presented the background of the research topic, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the conceptual framework, the research questions, the scope and bounds, the significance of the study, and the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 delves into the literature that framed this research study of the subject university’s Academic Success Center and the effectiveness of the support services offered in the Math Lab in correlation to student achievement.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This chapter provides an overview of the literature regarding the history of higher education in the United States, as well as an examination of the history and importance of math education in the higher education setting. This study also explores the literature about college degree completion and the value of college degree attainment, as well as the subject of math as an impediment towards degree completion. Additionally, the chapter provides a theoretical framework of student success and student achievement and the outcomes of student learning. Other topics reviewed in this chapter include: student success interventions, components of student success centers, the subject university’s policies on remedial courses, theories of student engagement and persistence, and peer tutoring as an effective intervention. History of Higher Education
The history of higher education dates back to ancient Greece. Philosophical influences from the Greeks were evident in the formation of Western higher education. The framework of higher education was designed largely on the history of thought which in essence was the history of philosophy. As in ancient Greece, the more settled and established a country became, the life of the mind began to evolve and took on more importance. According to MacKinnon (2004), regarding the history of higher education, “The Sophists, itinerant teachers, were the first to meet this need,” (p. 12) and chief among these philosophers were Socrates and his student
Plato (MacKinnon, 2004). These types of schools, founded on philosophical thought, were the forerunner of modern higher education.
The originators of educational structures initially believed that only the elite should be educated and consequently designed the educational experience to focus primarily on reason and ideas. However, students of Plato, in particular Aristotle, sought to go beyond reason and ideas
and expanded the concept of education to include logical and scientific principles. The educational history following the foundation laid by Greek teachers and philosophers is
extensive and covers the span of time from the fall of Roman through the Dark Ages. During this aforementioned timeframe, faith-based notions of the church were included in the history of early higher education institutions (MacKinnon, 2004).
Higher education institutions such as the University of Paris were included in the first educational structures to provide formalized education. Higher education institutions were not confined to European countries, but along with the establishment of the United States as a country came the establishment of higher education across the western world. Higher education in America included natural laws of society. Further, according to the researchers, “Just as scientists were discovering the natural laws of physics, astronomy, chemistry, and biology; knowledge and education were becoming too important to be dominated by religious authorities. The power of ideas was beginning to manifest itself” (MacKinnon, 2004, p. 13).
As higher education continued to evolve, there were several models of learning adopted. In the early years of the United States, the nine colonial colleges followed the British model, where students were provided a classical liberal arts education with little science and study of natural laws. However, according to MacKinnon (2004),
Realism, in the form of science, empiricism, and practicality, was pushing its way into the curriculum. The latter half of the nineteenth century saw the advent of the German model university, the bastion of research and academic freedom to teach and to learn. (p. 14)
The creation of the United States-style institution began with the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862. The United States-style institution included research, teaching, and service, and the course curriculum in these areas helped lay the foundation for the development of math courses in higher education.
History and Importance of Math Education in the Higher Education Setting
The history of math in the higher education setting is a necessary component of the learning experience. Mathematics has been an integral part of the history of science. According to Goktepe and Ozdemir (2013):
As a result of its significant role, teaching process should be organized in a way that students can develop a positive attitude towards mathematics. Students should believe that mathematics can make their lives easier. Therefore, teaching mathematics must be performed in an environment where students are willing to learn mathematical knowledge and can reach new knowledge on their own. (p. 125)
The use of the history of mathematics in education has been used to support the learning process of math education. Teachers of mathematics, through studies conducted on the use of the history of mathematics, have found that the historical knowledge of math increases students’ determination in the study of math and helps them develop a positive attitude to better understand mathematical concepts and principles (Goktepe & Ozdemir, 2013). Further, the researchers found that the history of math education teaches students that “mathematics is a science that people created in accordance with the needs of people” and “the history of mathematics reveals long traditions, different cultures, people’s feelings and developments” (Goktepe & Ozdemir, 2013, p. 126).
According to research conducted by Bradshaw, McCarney and Mann (2010), “Mathematics is usually, and of course correctly, presented “ready-made” to students, with techniques and applications presented systematically and in logical order. However, like any other academic subject, mathematics has a history which is rich in astonishing breakthroughs, false starts, mis-attributions, confusions, and dead ends” (p. 23). The history of mathematics helps students learn the source of mathematics and helps students come to the realization of why they need to learn mathematics (Goktepe & Ozdemir, 2013).
Historical Perspectives of College Degree Completion
College completion rates in the United States have varied widely over the past 40 years. In a report by Bound, Lovenheim, and Turner (2009), the researchers shared findings of their work comparing the college completion rates of two different cohorts of high school students. The researchers examined data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972 (NLS72) and the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88).Their research showed that although there is a higher percentage of high school graduates entering college today, the percentage of those students completing college has not increased proportionally. In fact, the percentage of students that enter college who actually complete college within an eight year span has dropped since the NLS72 study. Among the students who enter college, the share of students that actually complete college is lower today than it was in the 1970s. The eight-year college completion rate for the NLS72 group was 50.5% as compared to 45.9 % for the NELS:88 group. The researchers also found that these drops occurred in two-year colleges and non-top 50 public universities. Top-50 public and private universities actually saw an increase in degree completion (Bound et al., 2009).
Bound et al. (2009) found that there were multiple reasons for the drop in college completion between the two study groups. A drop in institutional resources (typically leading to a higher student-teacher ratio) was found to account for approximately 25% of the completion drop. More importantly, the researchers found that approximately 33% of the drop in college completion could be tied to a higher percentage of students who were less prepared for the rigors of college. The researchers used student math test scores to determine college readiness and revealed that “average math test percentiles among those enrolling in college dropped from 62.5 to 58.0 across cohorts” (Bound et al., 2009, p.10) for students in a two-year program. The researchers also found that women have had a much higher increase in college participation than men, moving from 46.5 % to 73.5 %, while men increased from 50.4 % to 68 %. Alongside this faster increase in college participation, women’s completion rates have stayed statistically the same with only a 0.6 % drop while men have seen an 8.5 % decline in college completion (Bound et al., 2009).
Implications of College Accessibility and Completion
Much research has been shared indicating that the financial implications of attending and completing a college degree will mean far more lifetime earnings for graduates than for those who do not have a college degree. In their work with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Daly and Bengali (2014) report that, as of 2011, college graduates earn on average about $20,050 more per year than high school graduates. This is a 61% higher earning power and their research revealed that the gap in earnings between college and high school graduates rises over the course of the worker’s life. Not only do college graduates start with higher annual earnings, they also experience more rapid growth in earnings than those with only a high school degree (p. 3).
Daly and Bengali (2014) also reported that data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed that those with only a high school diploma consistently face unemployment rates about twice as high as those for college graduates (p. 3). For example, a 2013 report by Oreopoulos and Petronijevic stated that the unemployment rate in November of 2011 was 4.4% for college graduates and 8.5% for those with only a high school diploma (p. 45). This information, coupled with the higher lifetime earnings, indicates that successful completion of a college degree is a positive step that can lead to financial stability and prosperity in the short- and long-term. Oreopoulos and Petronijevic (2013) completed a study that focused on specific segments of workers earnings for three different education levels: high school diploma, college degree, and graduate degree. Their research was based on 2011 findings of workers aged 30 to 50 and found the 50th percentile average earnings for college graduates was approximately $57,000 as compared to approximately $34,000 for those holding only a high school diploma
(approximately 67% difference). At data points for higher income earners, individuals at the 75th and 90th percentiles across each category revealed an even more stark income gap. Earnings by those college graduates at the highest income levels had a substantially larger income gap over high school graduates than the lowest college degree earners compared to the lowest earning high school diploma individuals (p.46). Although there are significant differences in the earnings of college graduates based on their degree and career field, the authors’ research shows that college education is associated with higher labor market earnings across all major
occupation sectors (p. 47). The authors further stated that “[s]tudents uninterested in or unable to complete a four-year college degree nevertheless appear to benefit from a two-year degree” due to the positive earnings gain as compared to a high school graduate (p. 61).
Beyond the obvious positive earnings gain for a college educated individual, a well-educated populace also has financial implications on the government municipality in which the individual lives. Because all states and the American federal government provide tax-supported loans, grants, and subsidies to college students, all taxpayers have a stake in successful degree completion of college students. It is estimated that in 2010 states spent more than $1.3 billion on students that dropped out during their first year of school, while the federal government spent over $300 million for similar students that dropped out (Schneider & Yin, 2011). Not only do these government entities lose money that was spent on students who dropped out, but there are other financial implications directly stemming from the loss of tax collections. In their study, Schneider and Yin reported that students who started college in 2002 seeking a bachelor’s degree but failed to graduate in six years lost approximately $3.8 billion in income for one year. This loss of income translated into a loss of approximately $566 million in federal income taxes and $164 million in state income taxes. Compounding this loss of income and tax revenue over the life of a worker revealed that this one cohort of students lost approximately $158 billion in income, $32 billion in federal income tax payments, and $7 billion in state income tax payments (p. 5).
Barriers to College Degree Attainment
The population of the United States has continued to diversify, and the U.S. Census Bureau has projected that some time in the next three or four decades non-whites will exceed 50% of the U.S. population. As the population continues to diversify, U.S. colleges and universities will continue to see an influx of students from various backgrounds, ethnicities, races, etc. This influx of a more diverse student population comes with its own set of potential problems because currently a large gap exists in the college graduation rates between white,
black, and Hispanic students. In 2011, the Education Trust Fund completed an analysis of 456 colleges and universities with a specific focus on the racial gap in graduation rates. The report found that 73.4 % of white students at private institutions earned their degrees within six years while only 54.7 % of black students and 62.9 % of Hispanic students earned a degree within the same six-year time limit (Akande, 2014, p. 22). It was determined to be imperative for colleges and universities to better identify, understand, and rectify this large racial gap, not only for the success of their own institution, but for the continued improvement of American society as a whole, since it has been shown that citizens with a college degree have many advantages, not the least of which is a much higher lifetime earning potential (Baum, Ma, & Payea, 2010).
Because achievement in high school is an important determining factor for college admittance, it is important to understand the issues that may affect achievement in high school and how that plays a role in college admission and persistence. Research by Reardon (2013) examined the overall achievement of two racial groups (black and white) and economic groups. Achievement gaps and how they have changed over the past 50 years were also
studied. Students born in the 1950s and 1960s faced an achievement gap that was considerably high based on the race of the student. At this same time, the achievement gap between low- and high-income students was relatively small. Over the past five decades, the racial achievement gap has narrowed considerably while the income achievement gap has widened
substantially. So, while both remain unacceptably high, economic inequality now exceeds racial inequality in education outcomes (Reardon, 2013, p. 11). Colleges and universities must consider these changing dynamics when recruiting new students for admission, as well as planning for interventions to help these students persist until graduation.
A college education is required for individuals to be prepared for economically competitive positions. Without a postsecondary education, options are limited in the workforce. According to Improving College Access (2015), “improving college access and completion for low-income and first-generation college students is one of the most important challenges facing our nation” (p.1). Based on the research conducted, the demand for workers with at least an associate’s degree will exceed the demand within the next five years. Therefore, there is a need for both access and completion of postsecondary education at a dramatically increased number to ensure the supply of workers meets the demands of the workforce.
There are noted gaps in postsecondary education between dependent students from families with high-incomes compared to dependent students from the lowest family income level. Therefore, “closing gaps in higher education attainment across groups is important for reasons of national economic competitiveness as well as social mobility” (Improving College Access, 2015, p.1). Students from families of low-income backgrounds are often underprepared for college and experience difficulty with navigating through college. According to Improving College Access (2015), “to create meaningful improvements in college access and completion for students from underrepresented groups, we must recognize and address the many ways that inequality is structured into the pathways into and through college” (p. 4).
As recommended by Improving College Access, resources need to be made available by the higher education institution to promote academic as well as social success, consequently improving college completion rates (Improving College Access, 2015). Additionally, Improving College Access recommended further research and evaluation to improve college success programs. More extensive assessment in the area of college success will lead to a more meaningful effect on students’ college-related outcomes.
According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics, just 59% of degree-seeking students entering college in 2007 had graduated six years later (College Graduation Rates, 2015). This low number has economic impact on the individual student as well as society as a whole. Because of the economic and academic implications, it is important to investigate why approximately 41% of all students that start college do not complete a degree. Approximately ten years ago the United States ranked seventh in the world in
educational attainment (years of formal education completed). That ranking has since fallen to 14th (Barton, 2015).
There are many factors that interact to determine college persistence rates for different students. One large factor that has played a role in college completion is the income level of the student’s family. According to a report by Reardon (2013), the college completion rate for children from high-income families has grown sharply in the last few decades while the college completion rate for students from low-income families has changed very little (p. 11). Another more recently identified factor that can help predict college persistence is the concept of “mind-set,” such as grit, or the willingness to work hard for an extended period to achieve a long-term goal. In fact, recent research showed that more than 50% of the likelihood that a given student drops out is related to mind-set (Barton, 2015). Through very specific steps colleges and universities can be intentional about cultivating specific frames of mind that will empower students to show more grit and persist until degree completion.
According to research conducted by Garcia (2015), the definition of first generation students is as follows: “students who are the first in their family to attend postsecondary education” (p. 46). As noted by other researchers who have conducted studies in the area of student success, Garcia recommends that more research needs to be conducted to understand
how students new to the college experience can successfully navigate their college program. Garcia states, “because of the high number of first-generation students now enrolled in institutions of higher education, more research needs to be conducted specifically on first-generation students and how their involvement can lead them to success” (Garcia, 2015). Garcia further stated, “Although significant research has been conducted on students’ involvement and success, very little has been conducted specifically on first-generation students’ involvement leading to their success” (p. 49).
Garcia further expanded her study to include the characteristics of first-generation students and compared their experience to that of what she refers to as continuing-generation students. First, Garcia noted that first-generation students are more likely to enroll part-time in a public, two-year institution (Garcia, 2015). The decision of first-generation students to enroll part-time and to a public, two-year institution was due to multifarious reasons including but not limited to the need to work more hours, financial reasons, and commuting issues (Garcia, 2015). Secondly, due to the aforementioned challenges, first-generation students are less likely to participate in co-curricular activities that help enhance the college experience, although research has determined that students benefit from co-curricular activities, having found links to
involvement of first-generation students and their attainment and persistence (Garcia, 2015). However, many first-generation students cannot participate in co-curricular activities due to the extra time commitment, and if there are additional costs involved with participating in the co-curricular activities, financial limitations restrict participation.
In addition to student challenges of first-generation students and their participation in co-curricular activity, faculty concern that too much time spent on co-co-curricular activities may be detrimental to academic success also is a limitation to co-curricular participation. However,
according to the research conducted by Garcia (2015), “when involvement in co-curricular activities increases, there is a corresponding increase in academic involvement” (p. 50). Math as an Impediment to College Degree Attainment
Improving student success is a campus wide concern for most higher education institutions; however, student success as it relates to mathematics is a major concern because many students come underprepared with math skills that will allow them to perform on a collegiate level. Hodara and Barton (2014) reviewed national data from a cohort of post-secondary students tracked from 2003 through 2009. The data revealed not only raw percentages of students at various types of post-secondary institutions, but also showed that the percentage of students taking remedial math courses at each of the included institutions was higher than the percentage of students taking remedial English courses. Additionally, this data showed an overall under-preparedness for the challenges of college math by American students. Colleges and universities have realized the lack of preparation their new students will bring with them each year and most are creating action plans to combat this problem.
Hodara and Barton (2014) reviewed three strategies that secondary schools often use to better prepare their students for college math: accelerated college credit (often presented as dual-enrollment), early assessment programs, and summer bridge programs. In their review of accelerated college credit (ACC) programs, Hodara and Barton referenced research by Speroni (2011) whose study showed that students who took college algebra in high school improved their college enrollment by 16%. More specifically, the taking of college algebra in high school improved associate degree attainment by 6% and bachelor’s degree attainment by 11% (Speroni, 2011, p. 43-47). Also noted by Speroni is the fact that taking a rigorous curriculum in high
school (specifically including college algebra) often leads to more college success and completion:
College algebra is a gatekeeper course, and having it completed at the onset of college seems to have helped students make progress toward a degree. One potential explanation for this finding is that students who experience a more rigorous curriculum in high school might be better academically prepared for college and therefore more likely to persist toward a degree. (p. 47)
As high school students matriculate through their secondary years, it is important that they and their teachers understand the various levels of academic preparedness, especially for college math. Hodara and Barton (2014) reported that as of 2013, 25 states supported some form of statewide early assessment program that measures the readiness of the student for college-level coursework. Unfortunately, only eight states have statewide “transition curricula” that offer transitional and college-preparatory math courses in the senior year of high school for students who have been identified to not be college ready (p. 2). Results in California showed that high school juniors in the 2003-2004 school year who were identified as not being college ready, and then participated in California’s Early Assessment Program (EAP), were
approximately 4% less likely to be referred to remedial math at California State University-Sacramento than previous juniors who did not participate in the EAP (p. 3).
Onwuengbuzie et al. (2014) conducted a study to “... to find out the perceptions developmental mathematics faculty have about what (a) impacts students’ placement and (b) hinders student success in developmental mathematics courses” (p. 67). Due to the increase in the need for developmental mathematics classes for students who are not adequately prepared for college mathematics, various placement tools have been designed. However, due the infinite
variability that exists among students academically, educators have come to an understanding that test scores alone may not be the best predictors of success (Onwuengbuzie et al., 2014).
Onwuengbuzie et al. (2014) studied two types of factors that could possibly impact student success in mathematics, “Situational factors, which relate to the circumstances surrounding a student’s life” and “Dispositional factors such as mathematical self-efficacy and anxiety that have been identified as predictors of mathematical achievement” (p. 60). The researchers found 15 themes from the faculty responses related to the perceptions of factors that could impact student placement in mathematics (p. 72). The most popular themes were time delay and mathematics skills.
The time delay between completing a mathematics course was the most reported barrier to student success in college mathematics by developmental mathematics faculty. Fifty-one percent of the developmental mathematics faculty related the time delay to, “ (a) returning students had a time delay between college and high school or (b) recent high school graduates had a time delay between their enrollment in a high school mathematics course” (Onwuengbuzie et al., 2014, p. 73). Another common theme that emerged was the lack of basic math skills. Forty-four percent of the developmental mathematics faculty reported that students lacked a solid mathematical foundation from grade school that led to gaps in their understanding of
mathematical concepts that were more complex (p.73).
Onwuengbuzie, et al. (2014) also determined 18 themes from the faculty responses identifying 18 factors that hinder student success in mathematics. “When the themes were grouped collectively together in factors, the factor that was identified the most often by faculty as hindering student success was Academic Behaviors and Work Habits” (p. 75). There were nine themes grouped into this category although, the most frequently reported themes were: study
skills, attendance, effort, and time management. Onwuengbuzie et al. (2014) revealed the dispositional factors reported by 49% of math faculty to hinder student success in mathematics. They were most often identified as, “Motivation, attitude in general, confidence/self-esteem, anxiety, persistence, and interest” (p. 75). Lastly, the researchers found that 42% of mathematics faculty mentioned situational factors like family and work problems that impacted their academic success due to the need to juggle family and work responsibilities with the coursework required in the college setting. These factors combined painted a picture that showed more clearly the barriers some students encounter in regards to college courses and specifically why some students seem to have increased difficulty with mathematics as a core content area.
According to Onwuengbuzie et al. (2014) the findings of this study indicated, “This information collected from faculty can help educators and policymakers in their quest to decrease the number of students who are placed in developmental courses and to increase the number of students who succeed in college” (p. 76). If decreasing the number of students requiring developmental courses, especially in mathematics, and increasing college persistence and retention are goals for educators and policymakers, this study concluded that various factors facing students must be addressed. Students must have gained a solid foundation in mathematical concepts and understanding as well as experience in a math course prior to college entrance in order to be more successful academically in mathematics. Students must also find ways to cope with the situational and dispositional factors they face in life while attempting to complete their college degree.
Theoretical Framework of This Study
A landmark study by Vincent Tinto in 1975 reviewed research on why students drop out of college and attempted to formulate a theoretical model that would explain the process of how
the interactions of the student in the higher education setting could impact their decision to persist and complete a college degree program (p. 90). Tinto (1975) related Durkheim’s theory of suicide to the issue of student persistence in college and stated, “When one views the college as a social system with its own value and social structures, one can treat dropout from that social system in a manner analogous to that of suicide in the wider society” (p.91). Durkheim’s theory was based on the amount of integration of an individual into society; Tinto asserted that if a college student had, “... insufficient interactions with others in the college and insufficient congruency with the prevailing value patterns of the college collectivity” then the likelihood of that student dropping out of college would increase.
Tinto (1975) identified four characteristics that were present in students who were possible dropouts: family background, individual characteristics, past educational experiences, and goal commitment. “As true in other areas of educational performance, the likelihood of an individual’s dropping out from college has been related to the characteristics of the family” (Tinto, 1975, p. 99). In general terms, socioeconomic status, social standing, the quality of relationships within the family, and the interest/expectations of parents all have an influence on student persistence in college. Individual characteristics are also important factors to consider in the area of college persistence and retention for students. Tinto (1975) cautioned, “Ability, however measured, is but one of a number of individual characteristics found to be associated with college persistence” (p. 101). However, according to Tinto (1975), student ability was found to be twice as important in predicting college success despite the additional personality and attitudinal characteristics that were found to impact student persistence such as:
Past educational experiences and goal commitment were also found to be instrumental factors that could impact student persistence. Tinto (1975) stated, “The characteristics of the high school are also important because they directly and indirectly affect the individual’s aspirations, expectations, and motivation for college education” (p. 102). Tinto’s (1975) research also found that the student’s commitment to the goal of college completion was directly related to the completion of a college degree and “it is the most influential in determining college persistence” (p. 102).
Tinto (1975) also agreed, “Persistence in college is, however, not simply the outcome of individual characteristics, prior experiences, or prior commitments” (p. 103). Interaction within the college environment was instrumental for students who desired to fulfill degree requirements and ultimately reach the goal of graduation. This environmental interaction included academic integration, social integration, and institutional commitment. Academic integration was described by Tinto (1975) as, “both grade performance and intellectual development during the college years” (p. 104). Social integration could occur in a variety of ways within the collegiate social system; however, “Peer-group associations appear to be the most directly related to individual social integration” (Tinto, 1975, p. 110). Increasing student involvement in the social environment created a sense of belonging to the collegiate community, and that relationship increased the probability of persistence for college students. According to Tinto, (1975) those same peer group associations, incorporated with extracurricular activities and faculty interactions, develop an institutional commitment for students that can also lead to college persistence and retention for students (p. 110).
Tinto (1999) stated, “Five conditions stand out as supportive of retention, namely expectations, support, feedback, involvement, and learning” (p. 5). Tinto proposed that students
would rise to high expectations in academic settings and need clarity of expectations that are consistent. Tinto also concluded, “the availability of academic support for instance in the form of developmental education courses, tutoring, study groups, and academic support programs such as supplemental instruction is an important condition for their [student] continuation in the
university” (p. 6). Academic support coupled with timely, specific feedback can also have a positive impact on student achievement and retention. Feedback given by advisors or mentors can “enable students to adjust their learning… and continue their studies” (p. 7).
Student involvement is another key component of student engagement according to Tinto (1999). He stated, “A wide range of studies in a variety of settings and for a range of students have confirmed that the more frequently students engage with faculty, staff, and their peers, the more likely… that they will persist to graduate” (p. 8). Learning was the final and vital condition to student engagement as related to retention. Students who were more involved in their learning tended to learn more in the long run and produce higher levels of academic achievement. Tinto concluded, “students are more likely to persist when they find themselves in settings that are committed to their success, hold high expectations for their learning, provide needed academic and social support, frequent feedback about their performance, and actively involve them with other students and faculty in learning” (p.8).
Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek (2006) stated the following in a commissioned report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success, “institutions that adopt educational philosophies that value undergraduate student learning also tend to encourage the use of such engaging pedagogies as active and collaborative learning, classroom-based problem solving, peer teaching, service learning, and various forms of electronic technologies” (p.1). According to research and evaluation conducted by the authors of the report, the aforementioned
methods are the hallmark of most student success programs. Kuh et al. (2006) also stated that “creating the conditions that foster student success in college has never been more important” and this knowledge encourages a closer look at postsecondary education institutions and the programs they offer to promote student success (p.1).
Research conducted by Kuh et al. (2006) on student success has allowed for a deeper understanding of factors that may influence student engagement and persistence. The report found the following two critical features concerning student engagement: “the first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities” and the second feature is, “how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the
curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services” (p. 31). The study also found that faculty interaction is one of several factors that plays an important role in helping to create environments that promote persistence (p. 41). Additionally, peer interaction emerged as an essential component in student persistence. According to Kuh et al. (2006), “because peers are very influential to student learning and values development, institutions must harness and shape this influence to the extent possible so it is educationally purposeful and helps to reinforce academic expectations” (p. 96). The report concludes with several recommendations for postsecondary institutions to achieve student success. Among the recommendations was the following advisement, “postsecondary institutions can address shortcomings in students’ academic preparation and increase the chances that students will succeed by adapting demonstrably effective policies and practices” (p. 97).
While there is much research focused on the retention of first year students, there is not nearly as much on students at other levels of college participation. Pattengale and Schriener (2000) proposed that the sophomore year may be a time in which students disengage from
academic life, possibly creating an adverse impact on their grades, which could lead to their dropping out of college. These two researchers proposed that academic institutions may feel as though they have succeeded in retention efforts after the first year and then may divert their retention efforts to the next incoming class of freshmen. Along these same lines of investigation, Tinto (1987) proposed that issues that are important for first year students may not be important for students at other stages of their college progression. He stated:
Long-term retention efforts beyond the first year should focus on three major sources of student departure: academic difficulties, the inability of individuals to resolve their education and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. (p. 176)
Tinto (1987) also said that institutions must show their commitment to students and that commitment “arises from and is demonstrated in the everyday interactions among students, faculty and staff in the formal and informal domains of institutional life” (p. 201).
In order to better identify the factors affecting academic success of college sophomores, Graunke and Woosley (2005) created a research project to identify those factors that might be different between freshmen and sophomore students. These researchers followed the research of others such as Gardner (2000), who found that sophomores were more likely than students in other classes to state that “confirming their major selection or deciding on an appropriate career was their biggest personal problem” (p. 72). Gardner also suggested that college sophomores were less likely than other students to be actively engaged with their own learning or to see faculty as engaged and caring about their personal and academic development. Because many sophomores have still not declared an intended major, these students often did not have close connections with faculty in one particular major. As well, sophomores typically spent less time than students
at other levels engaged in academic activities and more time engaged in social activities (Gardner, 2000). As evidence that college sophomores need the connectivity of college faculty, research by Juillerat (2000) found that sophomores at private colleges rated factors such as a sense of belonging and approachable faculty as more important than students at other levels. This is congruent with Tinto’s findings of the necessity for students to feel a sense of commitment, belongingness, and connectivity.
The research project by Graunke and Woosley (2005) used student grade point average (GPA) as the dependent variable to measure academic success of sophomores. The researchers chose this methodology based on the work of Astin (1993), who stated that, “GPA, despite its limitations, appears to reflect the student’s actual learning and growth during the undergraduate years” (p. 242). Graunke and Woosley compared a number of independent variables with student GPA to draw their conclusions and found a variety of outcomes. First of all their research found that student involvement in activities was not an important predictor of sophomore academic success. The study also found that “institutional commitment was not a significant predictor of sophomore success” (p. 374). This finding was counter to Tinto’s previous claims that institutional commitment played a key role in student retention.
While many sophomore students may not have made a declaration of a college major, most have made this declaration and have begun moving from general education courses to ones more specific to their major. Graunke and Woosley (2005) found that certainty in the choice of major was a significant predictor of sophomore academic success. In their words:
Sophomores who expressed higher levels of certainty about their major also achieved higher grades. To increase sophomore success, institutions may want to offer programs
and classes during the sophomore year that would help students discover more about their academic or career interests. (p. 374)
Also in congruence with the work of Tinto, Graunke and Woosley found that faculty interactions were a significant predictor of sophomore success.
In an interview with Alexander Astin for the Journal of Counseling and Development, Paul Bloland (1993) called Astin “ Higher education’s relentless reformer” with good reason (p. 371). Astin has a long history of research and development in the CIRP (Cooperative
Institutional Research Program), a program that has conducted longitudinal research on students for over forty years. Bloland (1993) identified Astin as, “the most frequently cited author in the field of higher education (p. 371). According to Bloland (1993), Astin referred to himself as a “jack of all trades” and admitted that his interests have changed from mainly student
development to include the areas of educational policy (p. 372).
Astin has been credited with initiating the first, nationwide longitudinal study of college students to evaluate how higher education institutions impacted students. Bloland (1993) recognized that institutions needed to examine students at the entrance point of their college experience, not just at outcome, whether it was withdrawal or graduation (p. 374). Astin’s development of the Student Involvement Theory was an accidental discovery during a synthesis of data collected on student retention. According to Bloland (1993), Astin explained, “Enhanced retention could be explained in terms of an investment of some sort by the student, that is, the student investing time and energy in the educational process” (p. 376).
These theoretical researchers explored models that could increase student retention rates and positively impact student persistence. Researchers agreed that various factors influence both persistence and retention. However, institutions of higher education must assume some of the
responsibility and utilize the resources at their disposal to benefit the students enrolled in their degree programs. The students have a responsibility as well; they must invest themselves fully and be prepared to make the effort required to meet their academic goals.
Various Student Success Interventions
Student achievement and success require interventions to help students navigate college coursework. Often, students come to college underprepared for the coursework they are expected to complete in classes required to fulfill their program of study. According to research conducted by Nelson and Clarke (2015), “there are deliberate points at which we can intervene with great intention and effect over the course of the student lifecycle” (Nelson & Clarke, 2015, p. 3). Based on the research findings from Nelson and Clark, the researchers recommend that the intervention process remain evident throughout the entire program of study. The
recommendation to provide an intervention framework for students in their final year is not a common practice.
Many of the interventions established to promote student success are found within the first year of a student’s college experience. However, the idea of helping students transition out of college during their final year, in addition to helping them transition into college within their first year, promotes holistic success of a student. One intervention evident in the student success model has been the embedding of transitions into the curriculum. Embedding transitions into the curriculum allows “students to see reflected in the curriculum the experiences of people just like them” (Nelson & Clark, 2015, p. 4).
Nelson and Clark (2015) also found that grades do not capture all learning; therefore, those focused on measuring student success, as it relates to achievement, have begun to build other measures for learning into the curriculum, such as life skills training. Life skill
development and growth is not captured in the form of grades, but is assessed through student feedback. However, as stated, “if assessment is what counts, then we need to find new ways of re-imagining the assessments so that we also build in those communication, information, literacy, teamwork, global citizenship skills” (p. 5). The researchers concluded by suggesting that the educational environment is controlled by professional, academic, and administrative staff, and that everyone who supports learning are all responsible for student success.
In addition to implementing intervention strategies to promote student success during the college matriculation process, researchers have discovered that math interventions should begin prior to remedial college courses. According to research conducted on community college education by Baber et al. (2015),
The challenge for students is one of academic catch up, which translates into extra time and money spent. Just 62 percent of students in remedial courses reach college readiness. In short, the costly path through remediation often means never reaching the intended destination: a postsecondary credential. (p. 1)
The challenge of remediation is that over half of students attending community college require some form of a remediation course in the areas of English or mathematics (Baber et al., 2015). Additionally, the researchers stated, “The problem of remediation is often one of misalignment between high school and college curricula.” This misalignment between high school and college curricula results in academic unpreparedness of students seeking to attend college after high school completion. According to the researchers of this study, in 2013, the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) launched a STEM College and Career Readiness project to provide math intervention in high school in an effort to help future college students avoid math remediation upon college enrollment (Baber et al., 2015, p. 1).
