Learning Assistance and Developmental Education:

The History and the State of the Art

Dr. Hunter R. Boylan
National Center for Developmental Education

The purpose of this manuscript is threefold. First, it provides a brief history of learning assistance. Second, it discusses where the field is today. Finally, it presents some preliminary findings from the National Center for Developmental Education's study of developmental education and learning assistance programs.

In endeavoring to do those things, it should begin, as the caterpillar told Alice... at the Beginning. And the beginning in American higher education was the founding of Harvard College in 1636. Few recall that Harvard College was originally established for the purpose of training ministers for the churches of the New World - at least the Puritan Churches. The Puritans valued literacy and classical scholarship - at least among their clergy - and considered these to be requisite for advanced study. So the founding fathers of Harvard College initiated what has since become the bane of postsecondary education - admissions requirements.

Classical scholarship of the time involved, primarily, the reading of Greek and Latin. There were two reasons for this. First, most of the religious writings of the time were in Greek and Latin. Second, there were few books written in English.

The King James version of the Bible was the first book actually written in modern English, and it was published only 20 years earlier. Academic literacy in those days required a minimum reading knowledge of at least three languages - Greek, Latin, and English. Possession of this knowledge was a requirement for admission to Harvard.

Not only had Latin been a dead language long before the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded, but there were few Greeks among the early English settlers. Consequently, almost no one in the colony qualified for admission to Harvard.

The only way to qualify for admission was to be tutored by a member of the clergy who was proficient in Greek and Latin. It is ironic that, just as soon as we had our first college, we had our first underprepared students. Furthermore, just as soon as we estab-lished our first college, we also had to establish our first tutoring programs.

Those who consider underpreparedness among college students to be a recent problem-or learning assistance to be a "new" phenomenon-are totally in error. Both have been around long before the institutions most of us work in were founded.

By the middle 1800s the situation had changed little-underpreparedness was still a problem. There were still far more students attending college than there were students who had the skills to be there. Furthermore, the admissions requirements of the day were not particularly stringent. Martha Maxwell (1985) points out that in order to qualify for

[page 12]

admission to Iowa State University in the middle of the 19th century, students had to be able to read, write, and be at least 14 years old.

While colleges had a lot of people who were over 14, they had fewer who could read and write at the college level. One response to this situation was the establishment of college preparatory departments - places that taught basic courses and offered tutoring to students so that they could improve their skills well enough to take regular college courses.

The first such program was established in 1849 at the University of Wisconsin - 142 years ago (Brier, 1986). For the next 50 years, college preparatory programs were to grow almost as rapidly as colleges and universities.

During this period, a major impetus to the expansion of college preparatory programs was the Morrill Act of 1862. It is well-known that this act provided for the sale of land to support the establishment of public universities. What is less well-known is the fact that the act was also designed to provide a pool of skilled engineering, agricultural, technical, and manage-rial personnel for what Congress rightly saw as a burgeoning technological society. Furthermore, Congress specifically intended that public colleges should bring about social and economic mobility for what were then called the "industrial classes" (Boylan & White, 1987, p. 2).

As more and more land grant colleges were established, more and more members of the industrial classes attempted to gain entry to these institutions. And as more students presented themselves for admission, more students were found to be under-prepared. Conse-quently, college preparatory programs, the precur-sor of the modern developmental education or learning assistance programs, were established at practically every land grant institution in the nation. The model was also borrowed by many of the private institutions of the era.

By 1889, the National Education Association reported that 80% of American colleges and universities had established college preparatory programs (Canfield, 1889). This percentage was to remain unchanged for the next hundred years.

In 1915, for instance, the U.S. Commissioner of Education reported that about 80% of American colleges and universities had college preparatory departments to serve under-prepared students (Maxwell, 1985). In 1973, Pat Cross surveyed American colleges and universities and found that about 80% of them offered remedial courses, developmental, or learning assistance programs (Cross, 1973). Sixteen years later, in 1989, the National Center for Education Statistics also surveyed American colleges and universities and found, again, that about 80% of them offered some sort of special programs for underprepared college students (NCES, 1991).

What surprises most people is not just that we have had the equivalent of develop-mental and learning assistance programs throughout the history of American higher educa-tion, we have also had about the same number of these programs for the last 140 odd years.

[page 13]

The problem of underpreparedness among college students is not a new problem. It has been with us since the first aspiring Harvard entrant had to take the equivalent of remedial Latin. And, ever since that time, there have been professionals there to respond to the problem. So the first message of this manuscript is that we are not parvenus in postsecondary educa-tion. We are not the new kids on the block responding to some new phenomenon. Many of our colleagues do not realize, that when they first began teaching sociology and psychology and computer science and business administration, developmental education and learning assis-tance professionals were there to meet them.

The second area addressed in this manuscript is "Where are we now?" Just what is the state of the art in developmental education and learning assistance?

One aspect of that state of the art is the size of the endeavor. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (1991), more than 30,000 instructors are engaged in the teaching of remedial courses in American higher education. And that refers only to instructional personnel. When you add tutors and counselors and managers, the number of people engaged in our business is closer to 45,000. And that represents about 10% of the American professoriate.

There are three national professional associations serving these personnel - the College Reading and Learning Association, the National Association for Developmental Education, and Commission XVI of the American College Personnel Association. The state and regional organizations of these associations represent every state in the union. In addition, the Educational Opportu-nity Associations and their ten regional organizations represent the entire United States as well as Puerto Rico.

These professional associations are also asserting leadership in establishing standards for practice in the field. During the 1980s, Commission XVI of the American College Personnel Association developed a set of standards for learning assistance programs that may be used in accreditation as well as for self study. The College Reading and Learning Association has developed standards for tutorial programs and has established a certification system for tutors and programs. That association is also developing other standards and criteria for professional practice in cooperation with the National Association for Developmental Education.

There are five major publications for professionals in the field - the Journal of College Reading and Learning, The Journal of Developmental Education, Review of Research in Developmental Education, Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, and the Journal of the National Council of Educational Opportunity Associations.

Each year, more than 50 state, regional, and national conferences are held for professionals in developmental education and learning assistance. There are graduate programs for developmental education and learning assistance at Appalachian State University, Grambling State University, National Louis University, Northeastern University, Southwest Texas State University, and the University of Texas-El Paso. There are training institutes at the University of Arizona and Appalachian State University as well as one sponsored by the Midwest College Learning Center Association.

[page 14

]

Let there be no mistake about it... learning improvement - which Ruth Keimig considers to be the bottom line in our profession (1983) - is a big business in the American higher education enterprise. Scott Miller, formerly the chief program officer for the Exxon Education Foundation, refers to developmental education as the largest growth industry in American higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently cited remedial and developmental courses as the largest "hidden curriculum" in the American postsecondary system.

Twelve states - Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia - now have in place legislative mandates requiring assessment of incoming students and the provision of remedi-ation for those who need it (Carpenter, 1991). Even more states will join in such mandates before the end of the decade.

As noted earlier, there have always been tutorial programs in American higher education... there have always been under-prepared students in American higher education... there have always been people and programs to work with these students. But now, there are some major differences.

Today, whether our colleagues or our administrators or our legislators like it or not, we stand at the forefront of the American higher education enterprise. We have moved from being a collection of people who provide services to unwanted students to being a movement of professionals whose services are needed by our institutions. We should no longer view ourselves as sub-professionals on the fringes of higher education. We are part of a profes-sion - and one that is becoming of ever greater importance to our institutions.

Professionals are characterized by several things. First, they have specialized training. And we have that in our graduate programs, our training institutes, and our professional conferences. Second, they have professional associations that promote high standards of practice. Third, they provide for peer review for purposes of accreditation or certification. Our professional associations are now providing leadership in both these areas. Fourth, they have professional publications and a body of literature to guide practice. The number of journals and books in our field certainly attests to our professionalization in this area. Finally, a profession encourages and is the subject of on-going research to establish basic knowledge and to improve practice.

And that brings us to the last concern of this manuscript - research. In many respects, the Exxon Education Foundation has provided a major impetus for the professional-ization of developmental education and learning assistance. The foundation helped to legitimize research in the field. It did so by providing a major grant to study the state of the art in our business - to gather some basic information about the students who receive our services and the institutions that host our programs.

The resulting study involved 159 institutions in all regions of the country. Programs at these institutions served 23,168 students. Of these, a random sample of over 5,000 students who attended college between 1984 and 1990 is currently included in our data base. The data base represents community colleges, technical colleges, private four-year institutions,

[page 15]

public four-year institutions, and research universities. It is the most comprehensive data base ever assembled on students participating in developmental and learning assistance programs.

This study has been going on for over three years and includes millions of bits of data on students, programs, and institutions. Unfortunately, we are still sorting through these millions of bits of data. As a result, our final analysis will not be completed for another six months or so. But we do have some preliminary findings of a general, preliminary nature.

These findings refute at least two myths about developmental education and learning assistance. Chief among these myths is that most participants in these programs come from minority backgrounds. In fact, the vast majority (62.5%) of participants are white.

A second myth is that these programs are not cost effective because students who participate in them fail to graduate. What we found is that the persistence and graduation rates for students who participate in developmental or learning assistance programs is generally consistent with, and in some cases higher, than national averages.

In 1968, Jencks & Riesman, estimated that throughout the 20th century, the gradu-ation rate for four-year institutions was about 35%. Vincent Tinto (1987) estimates it to be slightly higher at 45%. For two-year institutions, this figure has been variously estimated at 10 to 20%. Tinto (1987) estimates that only 13 of 100 community college entrants will earn a two-year degree.

If you average the persistence and graduation rates of students in our study from the various four-year institutions, it comes out to 38.9% over a 5 1/2 year period. Developmental students enrolled in two-year institutions had an average persistence and graduation rate of 28.7% over a four-year period. If looked at on the whole, students who participate in developmental or learning assistance programs have a higher rate of persistence and graduation than the national averages for ALL community college students and a rate comparable to that for ALL four-year college students. Our data, therefore, helps to make a solid case for the fact that developmental and learning assistance programs can contribute to student persistence and graduation.

On the other hand, the performance of students at various kinds of institutions is uneven. For instance, 24% of developmental students at community colleges had either graduated or were still enrolled after four years while 33.7% of those in technical colleges had graduated or were still enrolled after four years. At two year schools, the rate of retention and graduation for developmental students is comparatively low. Nevertheless, it is still considerably higher than the national rates for ALL students. Furthermore, it is unfair to judge community colleges against the standard of graduation.

Community colleges are not designed specifically to simply generate associate degrees. They are designed, among other things, to help students develop so that they can attain skills, leave the college and do something else.

A somewhat disturbing note in our findings was the performance of developmental students at public universities. Only 28.4% of those at public universities had graduated or

[page 16]

were still enrolled after 5 1/2 years while 40.2% of those at private colleges had graduated or were still enrolled after 5 1/2 years. At research universities, 48.3% of the develop-mental students had graduated or were still enrolled after 5 1/2 years.

It should come as no surprise that developmental students at research universities have the highest persistence and graduation rates. After all, what Berkeley or Harvard considers to be an underprepared student is, nevertheless, a pretty good student. What did come as some-thing of a surprise was that colleges devoted exclusively to vocational and technical training have a higher rate of graduation among developmental students than comprehensive com-munity colleges. Another surprise was that private colleges do a much better job with these students than state universities. The underprepared students at private four-year colleges persisted or graduated at a 40.2% rate while similar students at public four-year colleges persisted or graduated at the rate of only 28.4%.

It is worth noting that when I talk about private colleges, I am not talking about Stanford or Duke. I am talking about the small, private, non-selective, four-year institutions. In fact, the private colleges in our study took in about the same sort of student as the community and technical colleges. When matched for high school GPA and SAT scores, there was no significant difference between the students participating in developmental and learning assistance programs at private four-year colleges and those participating in the same programs at two-year colleg-es.

This, in itself, is a significant finding. Apparently, private colleges are often compet-ing for the same pool of students as community and technical colleges. However, the private colleges do a substantially better job insofar as graduation and persistence rates are con-cerned.

It is also interesting to note that, among institutions in our study, students attending public four-year institutions had consistently higher total SAT scores than those attending private four-year colleges. As noted earlier, SAT scores for those attending private colleges were similar to those attending community colleges. Nevertheless, the graduation and persistence rates were considerably higher for these students enrolled at private colleges.

Along the same lines, we found that Black developmental students are vastly more likely to graduate from research universities or four-year private colleges than from public four- year colleges or technical colleges. The graduation rate for Black developmental students at research universities was 31.9% and 26.9% at private colleges. The graduation rate for Black developmental students at public universities was only 15.5% and only 7.2% at community colleges. Although the percentages differ slightly, a similar pattern is also found for Hispanic students. The highest graduation rates for developmental students of Hispanic background are found at four-year private and at research universities. The lowest graduation rates for these students are found at public universities and community colleges. Unfortunate-ly, we cannot yet explain the reasons for this. We are currently at the primary level of analysis of our data. Our data base has the information that should enable us to answer some of these questions in the future. At present, however, we can only speculate.

[page 17]

Another finding, which confirms that of other researchers, is that the single most significant predictor of graduation for developmental students is their first semester GPA. The higher the grades of a developmental student during his or her first semester in college, the greater that student's chance of graduation. This is consistent with previous research by Kulik, Kulik, & Schwalb (1983) which suggests that the earlier a developmental program intervenes in a student's career, the more likely that program is to have success.

Another finding worthy of note has to do with scores on achievement tests. The SAT and ACT scores of white students in developmental programs are consistently higher than those of non-white students. What may come as a surprise, however, is that for develop-mental students of minority background, SAT and ACT scores do not seem to be closely related to graduation rates.

Obviously, a student with an SAT score of 1,000 is more likely to succeed than one with a score of 400. In general, however, the SAT and ACT scores of non-white develop-mental students do not correlate well with their graduation rates. Minority developmental students with low SAT scores are just as likely to graduate as white students with higher SAT scores.

Now what does all this suggest about developmental education and learning assistance programs? First, the data indicates that what we do is working. Our students regularly graduate at rates consistent with those of better prepared students.

Second, the data clearly suggests that we can improve our performance by intervening early in the academic careers of our students. The earlier we provide our services, the more successful our students will be.

Third, our results suggest need to be cautious in judging students, particularly non-white students, by scores on achievement tests. If we trying to pick potential winners and screen out losers, SAT and ACT scores are a poor measure-particularly for minority students and particularly those minority students who participate in developmental programs.

Finally, there may be some lessons to learn from the private, four-year colleges. For some reason, they are consistently successful in graduating their students-regardless of entry credentials and regardless of race.

It should be remembered that we are at the very beginning of the process of analyzing our data. The few findings noted here were taken right "off the top" so to speak. In the months to come, we will be looking at what specific services were provided at what institu-tions, what staffing and organizational patterns tend to be related to success, what student characteristics seem to be correlated with success, and what program character-istics seem to be associated with success.

As more data becomes available, we will be presenting it at NADE and at CRLA. Soon we will have a complete report available on all aspects of our findings. So, as they say on TV - "Stay tuned. There's more to come."

[page 19]

References

Boylan, H. & White, W. (1987). The historical roots of developmental education: Educating all the nation's people. Research in developmental education. 5,3, 1-4.

Boylan, H. (1988). The historical roots of developmental education: Part III. Research in developmental education. 5,1, 1-5.

Brier, E. (1986). Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Developmental Education. 8,1, 2-5.

Canfield, J. (1889). The opportunities of the rural population higher education. National Council on Education, Nashville, TN.

Carpenter, T. (1991). Mandatory assessment survey results. Lansing, MI: Michigan Developmental Education Association/Lansing Community College.

Cross, K. (1973). Beyond the open door. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jencks, C. & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday & Co.

Keimig, R. (1983). Raising academic standards: A guide to learning improvement. ASHE/ERIC Research Report # 1, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Kulik, J., Kulik, C-L. & Schwalb, B. (1983). College programs for high risk and disadvan-taged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of educational research. 53, 397-414.

Maxwell, M. (1985). Improving student learning skills. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1991). College level remedial education in the fall of 1989. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[page 19]