continuing in college (Pruett & Absher, 2015). Gajewski and Mather (2015) point out that integrated remedial programs have been repeatedly shown to be more successful in terms of retention that any program working in isolation. Students do not generally enter college with the intention of dropping out of school. The goal then, is to keep the student engaged in the process. For students in remedial courses, that goal is complicated. Many have learning disabilities – diagnosed or undiagnosed – that they may or may not want to self-reveal during orientation or enrollment processes (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). The general stresses of change among college freshmen are magnified within these students, and coping mechanisms get lost in the shuffle. In a strong remedial education program, students learn more than reading literacy and comprehension. They learn self-management, self-evaluation strategies, and goal-orientated thinking (MacArthur, Philippakos, & Graham, 2016). In that same study of motivation factors, including self-efficacy, it was found that perceptions of self as learners had as much or more impact on retention as learning the skill sets incumbent in literacy and comprehension. While a variety of techniques exist and are employed, the issue frequently seems to settle about the students’ perception of self upon assignment to remediation (Perun, 2015). Whatever skills those students thought they had mastered to get through high school seem not to work in college. Revision is no longer optional, it is required. For some, it is a matter of knowing the pathways – and they are frequently technological pathways – of a different map (Relles & Tierney, 2013). While students may be “millennial” and presumably “tech-savvy,” it often seems their skills fall short of Blackboard® online collaborative learning tool or Microsoft Word®. It behooves the university that plans on distributing students among developmental coursework to intervene with the tools to succeed. “While “gadgets” like smart phones are ubiquitous, practical
RQ2: Is a statistically significant difference between the exit exam test scores of male students taught by instructors with a bachelor’s degree when compared to male students taught by instructors with a master’s degree after one semester of remedial reading at a mid-size four-year university in the foothills of Appalachia? RQ3: Is there a statistically significant difference between the exit exam test scores of female students taught by instructors with a bachelor’s degree when compared to female students taught by instructors with a master’s degree after one semester of remedial reading at a mid-size four-year university in the foothills of Appalachia? Hypotheses The hypotheses for this study are: H01: There is no statistically significant difference between the exit exam test scores of students taught by instructors with a bachelor’s degree when compared to students taught by instructors with a master’s degree after one semester of remedial reading at a mid-size four-year university in the foothills of Appalachia. H02: There is no statistically significant difference between the exit exam test scores of male students taught by instructors with a bachelor’s degree when compared to male students taught by instructors with a master’s degree after one semester of remedial reading at a mid-size four-year university in the foothills of Appalachia. H03: There is no statistically significant difference between the exit exam test scores of female students taught by instructors with a bachelor’s degree when compared to female students taught by instructors with a master’s degree after one semester of remedial reading at a mid-size four-year university in the foothills of Appalachia.
Melguizo, T., Kosiewicz, H., Prather, G., & Bos, J. (2014). How are community college students assessed and placed in developmental math? Grounding our understanding in reality. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 691-722. Mellard, D., & Fall, E. (2012). Component of reading comprehension for adult education participants. Learning Disability Quarterly, 35(1), 10-23. Methvin, P., & Markham, P. (2015) Turning the page: Addressing the challenge of remediation, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 47(4), 50-56. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2015.1060100 Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult education quarterly, 44(4), Moghaddam, A. N., & Araghi, S. M. (2013). Brain-based aspects of cognitive learning approaches in second language learning. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 55-61. Mokher, C. (2014). Participation and pass rates for college preparatory transition courses in Kentucky. Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, U.S. Department of Education REL 2014-009, 1-62. Moss, B. G., Kelcey, B., & Showers, N. (2014). Does classroom composition matter? College classrooms as moderators of developmental education effectiveness. Community College Review, 42(3), 201-220. Nichols, J. P. (1923). Harnessing college to promote public welfare in the south. Journal of Social Forces, 2(1), 45-47. NIST. (2015, 11/03/2015). Mantel-Haenszel test. Retrieved from http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/refman1/auxillar/mantel.htm