seems necessary. What the University of Minnesota established as a “General College” program in 1932 has now evolved into an expectation for incoming students and an orientation and remediation program to ensure preparedness that is as multifaceted as the kaleidoscope of students who enter it (Glessner, 2015). Defining college success is one issue of concern. For Bahr (2012) the view was five terms beyond remediation of continued enrollment. For Crisp and Delgado (2014), the achievement was graduation within a set period that was program dependent. Camara (2013) points to completion of follow-on coursework, completion of program in a specific time period, exemption or completion of remediation or developmental programs, and grades. Others, such as Trammell (2009), Bahr (2013), and Venezia and Hughes (2013) consider the sense of achievement from the student to be the deciding characteristic of collegiate success. Regardless of the outcome, for these students, the emplacement in remedial coursework is an issue in and of itself. Romano (2012) found that part of the issue was that at the beginning of the term, the huge numbers of students enrolling in remedial coursework meant some were unable to enroll due to limited spaces. However, with a drop rate of over 50% in those courses within three weeks, schools could not justify more courses to enroll more students. In many ways, consideration of the effectiveness of remedial education is about the money. The significant funding required for developmental education attracts much attention (Melguizo, Kosiewicz, Prather, & Bos, 2014). Brothen and Wambach (2012) posit that students deserve the opportunities and that funding remediation is a small price for their success. Further, Brothen and Wambach (2012) suggest follow-on placement testing to those who fall short of the set score on the ACT or SAT as being well worth the investment in student success; though some
and consequently, test scores. Again, “developmental students need to be engaged as soon as they start their first semester” (Pruett & Absher, 2015, p. 38). The unfortunate lack of motivation that exudes from many remedial students is contagious, and must be overcome. In English remediation, many of these students have long struggled with reading fluency and comprehension issues and seldom are avid readers for pleasure. The continual struggle is exacerbated at the collegiate level where texts are frequently dry, and engagement of the reader is not the goal (Donalson & Halsey, 2013). Tracking compositional growth through cross-submission of papers and supplemental coursework as needed can streamline the developmental sequence into the career focused requirements of the student and allow for quicker advancement and thus greater engagement. Recently, Furtwengler (2015) addressed the advantages of ability grouping among three levels of honors students. Further comparisons among honors and non-honors students showed considerable enhancements among all groups. As may be suspected, the honors students require less structure and intervention than some of the non-honors students. It is likely that the same can be said for any three sets of ability grouped student. The trend in recent years, however has been greatly geared toward the embedding of the student into the classroom and reducing or eliminating divisions between groups. This focus has resulted from a concern about social hierarchies and personal esteem issues. Contrastingly, the recent Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA) has provided additional funding to intellectually disabled students seeking attendance at post-secondary institutions (VanBergeijk & Cavanaugh, 2012). The program having been initiated in 2008, data are not prolific. However, the program is advanced, particularly among those on the levels of the autism spectrum disorders. The expansion of disability services will
complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong” (p. 60). Doyle (2012) further points out that students who complete gateway coursework actually have better graduation rates than students who enroll in remedial coursework during the first term. The focus in that study, however, noted the term “intervention fidelity” (p. 60) explaining that institutional intervention and individual instructor intervention may be very different things. This points to the variance in teachers presenting the remedial material. Due to fiscal constraints at the state level, as noted by Wilson (2012), universities are pressured to keep the costs of developmental or remedial coursework exceedingly low. These efforts to reduce costs often result in less qualified or educated instructors, frequently adjunct, placed in the vital position of bringing these students to the level of collegiate education and keeping their motivation high. An effort such as the DRLS program of interactive learning could reduce costs and increase effectiveness (Panjaburees, et al, 2013), but the loss of interaction among some populations could result in lower retention rates overall. Doyle (2012) also studied students just slightly over the placement threshold for remediation and found little difference in graduation rates. While not conclusive, it does raise a question of whether it is placement that is at issue or where placement should be. Expectations among students and professors vary greatly as is to be expected. Perun (2015) found that expectations among students were specific and literal to the requirements presented in a syllabus, particularly among new college students. Students believed that merely meeting the basic elements of style and pages was sufficient as it had been in high school. However, at the college level, professors expected a level of analysis and care that students were unused to, and the requirement to revise for more in-depth understanding was unnerving to students. This transition in understanding is key to academic success in college, yet lacking in