The implications for the decision to completely eliminate remediation from the university setting are broad and profound for the individual, the educational institution and society. The educational system must scrutinize how K-12 programs are failing and explore what changes need to be made to produce students who are prepared to compete and produce on the college level – a goal that will require the collaborative effort of all levels of the educational system. But a more immediate approach is required to address those skills deficient students who are already engaged in the post-secondary educational system. Remediation on the university level is failing. Statistics clearly show that there is incredible need to address the deficiencies of these students, with roughly 1/3 of all students enrolled in public colleges and universities in need of at least one remediated course in their college career. With current remediation services in place nationally, the student who takes 1-2 remediation classes is half as likely to graduate with a four year degree within eight years as their peers, and for those who must take four remedial classes; there is only a 19% chance of graduating within eight years. The statistics which illustrate the state of need for remediation and the long term educational outcomes of students who receive such services in a university setting is discouraging, but should serve as a clarion call for innovation and reconsideration about the best ways to facilitate the knowledge acquisition and skill development of these at risk students.
The need to remediate students on the college level, though currently experiencing a renewed sense of public awareness, has a well documented past. Professor of Education, Mike Rose, points out that “since the middle of the last century, American colleges have been establishing various kinds of preparatory programs and classes within their halls to maintain enrollments while bringing their entering students up to par” (Miller 593). In his article, “The Language of Exclusion,” Rose explores the historical and social designation of such unprepared students as deficient. During the early part of the 20th century, advances were being made in education research which would better quantify skill sets which were in need of improvement. Students thus began to be categorized and segregated based upon their shortcomings and weaknesses. Labeling remediation students as somehow deficient or lacking made it easy to marginalize them, removing them from the breadth of the college experience. Rose designates this separation as a form of “scholastic quarantine until their disease can be diagnosed and remedied” (Miller, 596).
Though these students may be categorized by their documented need, they represent a diverse set of demographics which indicate that it will likely be impossible to cause an impact with a single solution. Students may arrive unprepared to perform college level work for various reasons. Students who experience language barriers, returning adult students and those with disabilities (both learning and physical) often require some level of remediation. Students transitioning from high school to college may also require additional preparation, but the statistics fail to take into account overall individual performance and strength of skill sets. Most students who transition directly from high school to a four year institution have performed well (sometimes completing honors level classes), earned their diploma and met the basic college entrance requirements (including grade point average and SAT scores) – as determined by the college.
Though the educational and socio-economic backgrounds of these students are representative of a broad set of circumstances, they commonly lack role models who are able to help them navigate the protocols and expectations of learning on the post secondary level. More than half of these students emerge from homes where the parents have not gone to college. Though involved and thoughtful college counselors can be extremely helpful, (sometimes making the difference in a students’ educational journey,) the role of these professionals is often limited or nearly non existent due to budgetary constraints. Even when seeking assistance from an advisor is an option, the student may feel fear and intimidation and the inability to connect with and seek help from authoritarian figures within the educational establishment (Hollis). In fact for many who are unable to acclimate to the increased stress of competing in a second language, juggling work and domestic responsibilities and for some living away from home for the first time, the college experience can be demoralizing and isolating. Placing these students in classes populated only by other remedial students further ostracizes them and presents a further barrier to providing them with successful role models in the form of other academically successful students.
In the effort to quantify what these students have learned and analyze their shortcomings, we have failed to consider how they learn and tailor remediation efforts with that in mind.
David Bleich discusses the natural pattern of human knowledge acquisition in his article “The Materiality of Language and the Pedagogy of Exchange.” He chronicles a two step approach by which he claims we learn. .He focuses on a mutual design of exchange, or modeling and reciprocation, through which we engage in active learning through exposure and interpersonal relations, which help the learner to absorb and assimilate information in an impactful way.
Students who participate in collaborative classroom settings which emphasize activities such as peer editing and student constructed exercises tend to have a greater grasp of the material. Bleich states that such scholarly echange “gives students access to these processes, authorizes them to judge and review the language they receive, and establishes their interests and ability to participate in the exchanges. Questions of imitation and emulation then appear” (Bleich). One example of this may be found a study of collaborative education involving remediation students which was conducted by Kimberly Kinsler of Hunter College. Her objective was to determine the effectiveness of peer collaboration to determine its efficacy in helping the students to pass the writing exam which they were required to take. Kessler’s study ultimately failed to demonstrate that the students would improve enough to receive a passing score on the exam. Although the students showed improvement, technical writing errors, which she attributed to their status as English Language Learners continued to present an obstacle. However, Kinsler’s study was successful in demonstrating three modeling aspects which may help to improve the effectiveness of helping skills challenged students achieve. Kinsler provided direction in terms of the regulated activities which she assigned; she literally produced worksheets which outlined the methods by which the groups were to run the peer editing sessions. She reports that at first the students felt confused and uncertain about their tasks and ability to achieve their goals, but within weeks the students were no longer dependent upon the guided exercises and were able to self direct. The students were ultimately able to abandon the worksheets because they had become aware of techniques and methods necessary for their task and were eventually able to assimilate them when editing other’s papers, but perhaps more significantly they were able to incorporate these strategies when writing their own papers. She also compelled the students to involve themselves in a reciprocation of the learning process where they were actively engaged in the assignments. By discussing the writing assignments and the editorial aspects which were proposed, the students had to critique the work of a classmate, but also were placed in a position of having to explain and debate the reasoning making formerly unfamiliar concepts more concrete and providing the students with a sense of mastery. Finally, the group exercises helped the students to develop a community approach. This interpersonal approach is key, because it not only exposes the students to their peers who might be deemed less intimidating and therefore more receptive of criticism, but it also exposed the students to the level of work produced by other students. Kinsler’s study though not ultimately successful for her specific design, is important because it demonstrates that combining methods of modeling 1) in guided form 2) reciprocation and 3) interpersonal relations can assist students to gain metacognitive awareness.
Typically students identified as being in developmental education have been separated from their academically proficient peers. We have relegated these students to a socially constructed academic exile of remediation, without the tools or examples necessary to learn the skills which will help them overcome their barriers. It is clear from studies like Kinsler’s that these students are able to internalize many of the technical and social skills which will help them develop into good students. The element missing or in need of refinement in most developmental students is knowing how to learn and become good students. Essentially we have compounded their difficulties by removing them from university experience, segregating them from likely mentors and peers who could model metacognitive awareness.
Academically successful students have been identified as such because they have learned to navigate the process of becoming educated, by learning the study, time management skills and juggling of responsibilities, as well how to resolve or maneuver around difficult materials or professors. Successful students have developed a three prong approach to their education which includes “awareness,” “planning” and “monitoring/reflection.” “Awareness” involves the self inventory of defining goals, resources (both internal and external), and motivational level, by assessing these and other factors, these students are able to plan realistically. “Planning” involves arrangement and preparation of study schedules and task deadlines, organizing materials and breaking assignments and projects into manageable steps. Finally the successful student recognizes the need for “monitoring and reflection.” During this phase the student reviews overall goals and determines what methods have been most helpful and reconsiders where additional attention or effort is required. Though typical college students have internalized these abilities, most continue to regularly model and reinforce these skills amongst their peers in casual conversations outside of class time, by comparing research topics and materials, comparing grades and forming study groups or sharing notes. As Bleich suggested, they reciprocate and form interpersonal communications which promote knowledge acquisition.
Just as in the Kinsler study, these metacognitive concepts and skills are techniques which can be modeled by typically advancing students and reinforced through regular contact and collaboration in academic projects with students who are in need.
It is easy to designate blame for the inability of students to perform on the college level, and easier still to eliminate the need to serve these students by completely eliminating such courses in four year institutions. Clearly the need felt by this student population is not being diminished by current efforts and new perspectives and strategies must be considered to assist in finally addressing this need. not labeling and segregating it, but will honor each student for the skills and experience they bring and by developing and applying strategies which using will help to further strengthen and develop each student so that they may achieve.
Works Cited
Bleich, David. “The Materiality of Language and the Pedagogy of Exchange.” Pedagogy 1.1 (2001) 117-141. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pedagogy/v001/1.1bleich.html
Diploma to Nowhere. Rep. Strong American Schools. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Hamilton, Kendra. "Rhetoric Vs. Reality." Black Issues in Higher Education 18.21 (2001): 31-34. EBSCOhost. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Hollis, Leah P. "Academic Advising in the Wonderland of College for Developmental Students." College Student Journal 43.1 (2009): 31-35. EBSCOhost. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Perkins- Gough, D. "Unprepared for College." Educational Leadership 66.3 (2008): 88-89. Wilson Web. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
Rose, Mike. “The Language of Exclusion.” The Norton Book of Composition.” Ed. Miller, Susan. Norton: New York. 2009. 586 - -603.
Kinsler, Kimberly. “Structured Peer Collaboration: Teaching Essay Revision to College Students Needing Remediation.” Cognition and Instruction. 1990. 303-321.
Richardson, Jeanita W. ""Who Shall be Educated?": The case for Restricting Remediation at the City University of New York." Education and Urban Society 37.2 (2005): 174-92. Http://eus.sagepub.com. Web. 25 Oct. 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment