Details on the Design and Implementation of Corequisites in Texas Community Colleges: Appendix

Research Report Details on the Design and Implementation of Corequisites in Texas Community Colleges Appendix Lindsay Daugherty, Celia J. Gomez, Diana Gelhaus Carew, Alexandra Mendoza-Graf, Trey Miller RAND Education RR-2337-IES January 2018 For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2337 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Introduction The 36 community colleges in our fall 2016 implementation data collection varied in the design and implementation of corequisite models. We described five general models in the main report;1 however, within and across these model types, institutions made many smaller decisions about corequisite implementation that are described in this appendix. In this appendix, we discuss three aspects of corequisite design and implementation: structure, content and pedagogy, and student population. Some design features applied to the corequisite as a whole (the college course and the developmental education [DE] support), while others were specific to the DE support. We use the terms corequisite and DE support to distinguish between the different cases. Corequisite Structure The structure of a corequisite included basic design features that are typically determined centrally by an institution or academic department and are consistent across sections and instructors within institutions. We explored five components of corequisite structure in Texas community colleges: (1) whether the DE support was structured as a formal course or another type of support; (2) credit hours for the DE support; (3) timing of the DE support and college course; (4) instruction for the DE support and college course; and (5) student makeup of the DE support and college course. Figures A.1 through A.8 provide some key summary statistics on the structure of corequisites, and we describe these findings in greater detail below. Details on individual models are provided in Table A.1. Type of DEupport S Texas policy provided two options for the DE supports that were paired with a college-level class: a formal DE course or a noncourse-based option (NCBO; described in Box 2 of the report). NCBOs were somewhat more common than formal courses (Figure A.1). Credit Hours for the DEupport S Texas policy allowed institutions to vary the number of credit hours assigned to DE supports. In nearly half of the models described by institutions, DE supports accounted for just one credit hour (Figure A.2). When paired with a three-credit-hour English 1301 course (the standard across the state), these students were enrolled in four total credit hours of writing and reading 1 For the main report, see https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2337.html 3 instruction in the first semester.2 In the traditional DE sequence, these students would have been enrolled in a three- or four-credit-hour developmental course followed by the English 1301 course in the second semester. In the new DE support, students with one-credit-hour corequisites were enrolled in and paid tuition for the same number of credit hours in writing and reading Quick Takes: Corequisite Structure in Texas Institutions Figure A.1. Type of DE Support Figure A.5. Instructor for College NCBO 60% Course and DE Support Course 40% Always the same 58% Same preferred 11% Figure A.2. Credit Hours for DE Can be different 31% Support 0 credit hour 7% Figure A.6. Mixing DE and College-‐ Ready Students in College Course 1 credit hour 47% 2 credit hours 9% Yes, ratio set 44% 3 credit hours 33% Yes, no ratio 20% 4 credit hours 4% No mixing 36% Figure A.3. Timing of College Figure A.7. Student-‐to-‐Instructor Course and DE Support Ratio in DE Support Sequential 29% 20 or more 51% Concurrent 73% 10 to 19 40% Less than 10 Figure A.4. Format of DE Support 9% Face-‐to-‐face class 76% Computer modules 20% Figure A.8. Student-‐to-‐Instructor Ratio in College Course Writing center 11% Office hours 7% Reduced size 33% Same as usual Lab workshop 7% 67% NOTES: In Figure A.3, one institution offered a model in both concurrent and sequential options, leading to percentages summing to more than 100. Some institutions chose models that blended different types of supports, so the Figure A.4 percentages sum to more than 100. Other percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. 2 It is important to note that while credit hours and contact hours typically align, institutions do have some flexibility to assign fewer credit hours to a course than would be typical for a given amount of contact hours. For example, at one institution, students are enrolled in a one-credit-hour course and pay tuition only for that one credit hour, but they are required to participate in three contact hours of instruction. While student-course loads and tuition are tied to credit hours, reimbursement and instructor-course loads are tied to contact hours. 4 in the first semester, but they save two or three credit hours overall. Three-credit-hour supports were also common, accounting for 33 percent of the corequisite models described (Figure A.2). While these models often did not decrease the total number of DE credit hours students enrolled in, they accelerated and intensified writing and reading instruction by requiring six hours of instruction in the first semester rather spreading the time Timingacross of two DE Support semesters. and Collegeourse C Texas policy required corequisite students to enroll in the college course and the DE support in the same semester, but timing within the semester could vary. Nearly three-quarters of corequisite models included a DE support that ran concurrent to the college-level course (Figure A.3). Students in these concurrent DE supports typically participated one or two times per week alongside the college-level course throughout the semester; however, in some cases, institutions chose to concentrate the support earlier in the semester (e.g., requiring student to attend two hours per week in the first eight weeks rather than one hour for 16 weeks). Twenty-nine percent of corequisite models structured the DE support and the college course sequentially (Figure A.3). In these models, the students attended the corequisite course or NCBO for two to eight weeks, depending on the model, and then the students transitioned into the college-level course for the remainder of the 16-week semester. While we did not collect systematic data across the state on the timing of courses within a week or day, many institutions reported intentionally scheduling corequisite sections to align with college courses in various ways. This included scheduling sessions at the same time on alternate days or scheduling the sessions back-to-back on the same day. In some of the NCBO delivery models that used a writing center or office hours, the timing of participation in the DE support varied according to student choice and instructor availability. Format of the DE Support For the DE support, institutions had the flexibility to use a range of different instructional approaches. Some models relied on a single instructional approach, while others blended several approaches. Face-to-face classroom instruction was the most common instructional approach for the DE support, reported as being used in 76 percent of the models described by Texas community colleges (Figure A.4). However, some institutions opted for alternative instructional approaches. Twenty percent of DE supports involved work with computer-adaptive software modules. Other institutions chose models that delivered the DE support through mandatory participation in a writing center (11 percent), office hours (7 percent) and/or lab-based workshops (7 percent). 5 Instructor for the Corequisite State policy required that the college course and DE support each have an instructor of record, and institutions were able to use both adjunct and full-time instructors for corequisite models. The regional accreditation agency set instructor qualification standards, and required instructors to have a bachelor’s degree to teach any type of DE (including the DE support) and 18 hours or more of graduate education in English-related disciplines to teach a college-level writing class.3 The most well-known corequisite model, the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP), used the same instructor for the college course and the DE support; more than half of the corequisite models described by Texas community colleges used this same-instructor design as a core feature of the model; and another 11 percent noted that having the same instructor was preferred (Figure A.5). The remaining 31 percent of models were designed to allow for different instructors for the college course and DE support. In addition to the primary instructor, some corequisite models used other resources for instruction in the DE support.

Load more