Innovative Developmental Education Programs: A Texas Model.

This article frames the issues facing developmental education (DE) in Texas where it has been placed front and center with extensive state-level grant funding and program development. In this study, we assessed DE components through a 2-year cross-site evaluation ofTexas institutions of higher education that participated in a state funded DE program built on existing, best-practices research. The funding has resulted in a combined effort at four universities and five community colleges impacting more than 4,000 students. The intent is to bring the identified scalable components to the entire state as a model and offer a state model nationally. Funded sites that participated in the cross-site evaluation reported here were asked to respond and to provide specific context to the broad findings.The term "developmental education" refers to a field of practice and research within higher education with a theoretical foundation in developmental psychology and learning theory. It promotes the cognitive and affective growth of all postsecondary learners at all levels of the learning continuum (Arendale et al" 2007). Developmental education (DE) in Texas is primarily composed of incremental courses designed to bring underprepared students to the level of skill competency expected of entering college freshmen; DE is an increasingly important and utilized component of higher education in the United States (Boylan, Bonham, & Rodriquez, 2000; Calcagno & Long, 2008; Kozeracki 8c Brooks, 2006). Although some extant research on the effectiveness of DE programs has found that they help students to persist and succeed in DE and credit-bearing courses (Boylan, 2002; Brothen 8c Wambach, 2004; Grubb et al., 2011), other research has found that DE coursework itself can be a significant barrier or that the impact of DE courses or supports is short-term and does not translate into success in credit-bearing courses (Deil-Amen 8c Rosenbaum, 2002; Levin 8c Calcagno, 2008; Rosenbaum, Stephan, 8c Rosenbaum, 2010). A common finding in the literature is that DE programs are hard to assess due to, among other things, differences in program components and implementation, a lack of comprehensive evaluation, and data limitations (Boylan, Bonham, 8c Tafari, 2005; Calcagno 8c Long, 2008). Thus, our goal is to help fill a gap in the literature by describing which components were considered to be most successful for helping students with developmental needs and DE faculty development across various higher education contexts. This cross-site study also contextualizes the rest of the articles in this special edition of the Journal of Developmental Education because they all originate from Texas higher education institutions implementing DE programs.Developmental Education InterventionsFor many years, institutions have supplanted the "remediation-only" DE approach with an assort- ment ofstudent supports, Supplemental Instruction, and course innovations. The goal of these various components was to improve upon student success rates via diverse services and programs as compared to remediation that was designed and focused on gaps in student learning for prerequisite mastery. Therefore, the move to a components driven DE program was to build student skills and connec- tions that increase the chances of moving students to credit-bearing courses and eventual degree completion (Brothen & Wambach, 2004; Levin & Calcagno, 2008; Tinto, 2003). Koski and Levin (1998) developed a conceptual framework of interventions that scaffold students with developmental needs into becoming successful in DE and credit-bearing courses. These concepts include improving instruction and instructional supports, fostering student connectedness through an array of personal and interpersonal supports, and skill building.Several factors have influenced DE student outcomes. Students with developmental needs have been shown to benefit from student and instructor learning communities (Tinto, 2003) as well as interventions that enhance communication among students, instructors, and advisors (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997). …