Proceedings of the Second Meeting On Future Directions in Developmental Education
April 5-6, 2001
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Co-Sponsored by the General College and
The Center for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy,
University of Minnesota

Editors:
Dana Britt Lundell and Jeanne L. Higbee

This publication is available online at:
http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul

Copyright © 2002 by the Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America.

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

This publication/material can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Direct requests to Dana Lundell, General College, 333 Appleby Hall, 128 Pleasant Street SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, 612-626-8706.

Printed on recycled and recyclable paper with at least 10 percent postconsumer material.

Table of Contents

Introduction	5
Dana Britt Lundell & Jeanne L. Higbee

Participant Biographies	7

Research in Developmental Education: What Should We Do and How Can We Do It? 11
Summarized by Hunter Boylan & Shevawn Eaton, Session Co-Leaders

Best Practices for Developmental Education	17
Summarized by David Caverly & Linda Russell, Session Co-Leaders

Community Partnerships, Collaboration, and Civic Engagement	25
Summarized by Carol Bader & Jeanne L. Higbee, Session Co-Leaders

Shaping Policy and Guiding Practice for the Future	33
Summarized by Norman Stahl & Martha Casazza, Session Co-Leaders

Some Final Thoughts on Theoretical Perspectives—Over Lunch	39
Summarized by Carl Chung & Thomas Brothen, Session Co-Leaders

Bibliography of Suggested Readings	45
Compiled by Session Co-Leaders & Co-Editors

Upcoming CRDEUL Publications	53

Call for Submissions: Multiculturalism in Developmental Education	55

Introduction

Dana Britt Lundell and Jeanne L. Higbee
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy
General College, University of Minnesota

On April 5-6, 2001, a group of 25 national and regional leaders in the field of developmental education met in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the second Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education. This meeting was co-sponsored by General College (GC) and the Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy (CRDEUL), at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. The purpose of this meeting was to follow up on conversations initiated during the First Intentional Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education (Lundell & Higbee, 2000), which focused on sixteen themes in a series of break-out group discussions with the goal of guiding the future work of leaders across organizations and programs in postsecondary developmental education. The success of the first meeting provided the foundation and momentum for hosting a second meeting to further examine salient issues from those original sessions.

The second Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education included a core group of individuals who were present at the first meeting to establish continuity, along with new participants representing leadership across a variety of developmental education programs and national organizations. The primary goal was to advance key themes from the first meeting into a more focused set of recommendations with a framework for creating action plans in a future meeting. Four major themes were established: Future Directions for Research; Future Models, Best Practices, and Alternative Delivery Systems; Shaping National and Local Policy for the Future; and Community Partnerships, Collaboration, and Civic Engagement.

To begin conversations, “home groups” were formed consisting of two co-leaders, plus a group of four or five other participants who were collectively responsible for establishing a framework for discussion in one of the four thematic areas. Home groups met together during the first break-out session of the meeting to brainstorm issues and questions related to their primary theme, providing a foundation for other participants to discuss at a later point. After the first session, home group members dispersed into break-out sessions on the other three themes, rotating and contributing to each new topic once during the meeting. Also during this time, co-leaders in each home group provided continuity for their original topic areas by rotating and sharing this responsibility, with one person traveling to other break-out sessions while the other one led new visiting participants in more brainstorming based on the home group’s agenda. At the end of day two, members of the original home groups reconvened to review notes that were generated by other groups’ visiting members, shaping these ideas into specific outcomes and future recommendations to share with the whole group later in the meeting.

Another important conversation occurred independently from the main break-out themes. Over lunch on the second day, participants had the opportunity to meet members of the General College who were contributing authors to the Center’s first monograph titled Theoretical Perspectives for Developmental Education (Lundell & Higbee, 2001), a topic stemming directly from the First Intentional Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education. Authors guided participants’ lunchtime conversations over the issues raised in this monograph, emphasizing an interdisciplinary range of theoretical perspectives relevant to teaching and research in postsecondary developmental education.
The second Meeting on Future Directions culminated in a reporting session in which co-leaders and home group members presented summaries of their conversations, with the additional goal of writing summaries for this proceedings and establishing points for future discussion and action. The Proceedings of the Second Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education summarizes outcomes from those four thematic areas and the lunchtime conversations on theoretical perspectives, with an additional set of suggested readings in those areas.

The third Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education will be hosted in October 2002, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with the goal of continuing to create concrete actions from these recommendations. The ongoing mission is to continue to cross-pollinate discussions about developmental education with the expertise and vantage points of leaders from a variety of locations and organizations who may not always have the occasion, time, and resources to share and generate ideas and information for future work in the field.

We would like to thank a variety of individuals who helped make this meeting possible, including Dean David Taylor and Terence Collins, Director of Academic Affairs for the General College. Our graduate students in the Center, Juni Banerjee-Stevens and Jennifer Kreml, worked diligently on arrangements, invitations, editing, and related research activities. Karen Bencke, GC Technical Support Services, worked hard and skillfully to format this proceedings. We also want to thank CRDEUL’s Advisory Board members for their input in shaping the themes and plans for this meeting, and all CRDEUL authors from the monograph on theoretical perspectives who joined us for lunch. Finally, we thank all the participants once again for their outstanding contributions to another successful meeting.

References

Lundell, D. B., & Higbee, J. L. (2000). Proceedings of the First Intentional Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Lundell, D. B., & Higbee, J. L. (2001). Theoretical Perspectives for Developmental Education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Participant Biographies
 
David Arendale is the Director of the National Center for Supplemental Instruction located at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. For the past two decades Arendale has been extensively involved with programs related to student success; has been a frequent conference speaker; and has authored or edited 85 articles, monographs, and videotapes. Arendale is an advisory board member of the National Center for Developmental Education, editorial board member of the Journal of Developmental Education, and a Founding Fellow of Developmental Education of the American Council for Developmental Education Associations.

Carol Bader is Chairperson of the Developmental Studies Department at Middle Tennessee State University, which won the NADE Outstanding Program Award in 1993. She is co-author of two textbooks, serves as Chairperson of the Tennessee Board of Regents Research and Development Council, has published numerous articles, made numerous presentations, and serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Developmental Education.

Lois Bollman is the Associate Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs at Minneapolis Community and Technical College, has served as System Director for Assessment in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System Office for two years, and has served as System Director for Student Success in the Minnesota Community College System for six years. In those positions, Bollman provided system-level leadership to a research agenda that included defining college readiness in reading, writing, and mathematics and learner outcomes from developmental courses as well as a two-year follow-up study of 20,000 students in Minnesota community colleges that examined the effectiveness of developmental education.

Nancy Bornstein is Director of the Instructional Services department at Alverno College in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In that capacity she oversees developmental course offerings, academic support services, ESL programming, and services for students with disabilities. She has been active in the National College Learning Center Association (NCLCA) since 1988 and is currently Co-Editor of The Learning Assistance Review, the journal of NCLCA.

Hunter R. Boylan is the Director of the National Center for Developmental Education and a Professor of Higher Education at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina. He is also the Editor of Research in Developmental Education, a member of the editorial boards of the Journal of Developmental Education, the Journal of Teaching & Learning, and the principal investigator for the ongoing National Study of Developmental Education. He is the current Chairperson of the American Council of Developmental Education Associations and the former President of the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE). He has received NADE awards for “Outstanding Leadership” and “Outstanding Research.” In 1996, NADE designated its award for “Outstanding Research Publication,” the “Hunter R. Boylan Award” in honor of his contributions to research in the field.
Thomas Brothen holds a Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Minnesota with a specialization in social psychology. He is currently Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor of Psychology and Social Sciences in the General College, University of Minnesota. His professional association affiliations include memberships in the National Association of Developmental Education, the American Psychological Association and its Teaching of Psychology division, and the American Psychological Society. His publication record includes two books and nine study guides related to the teaching of general psychology and more than 60 journal articles and chapters related to social psychology, developmental education, and teaching psychology with the personalized system of instruction in a computer-based environment.

Martha Casazza is Chair of and Professor in the Developmental Studies Department at National-Louis University. She is immediate past President of NADE and currently chairs its Certification Board. She recently co-authored a book, Development and Learning: Making Connections to Enhance Teaching and has a new one in process entitled Challenging Students to Succeed: A Shared Responsibility.

David Caverly is a Professor of Education at Southwest Texas State University where he directs the Developmental Reading Program and teaches reading and research classes in the Graduate Program in Developmental Education and the Teacher Education Program. He has been involved in developmental education for over 25 years teaching reading and directing learning centers in community colleges, four-year colleges, and universities. Perhaps he is best known for his column “Tech Talk” in the Journal of Developmental Education and his edited book with Rona Flippo, The Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research.

Carl Chung is an Assistant Professor of Humanities at the General College-University of Minnesota. His research interests include the role of theory in developmental education and critical thinking. 

Terence Collins is Director of Academic Affairs and Curriculum in the General College-University of Minnesota. He is a Morse-Alumni Distinguished Teaching Professor. His teaching and research interests are basic writing, disability studies, and technology in developmental education.

Tom Dayton is a Professor of Reading at American River College and the immediate past President of the College Reading and Learning Association. Tom has taught every grade level from kindergarten to graduate school in his 30-plus years in education. Tom has a Masters Degree from California State University, Sacramento, and did further graduate work at UCLA.

Mary P. Deming is an Associate Professor of Language and Literacy in the Middle, Secondary, and Instructional Technology Department in the College of Education at Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Deming teaches graduate reading and English education courses. Prior to this time, Dr. Deming taught developmental reading and English courses. Her research interests presently include academic literacy and second career students in teacher education.

Irene Duranczyk has been the Program Administrator of Developmental Mathematics at Eastern Michigan University for the past nine years. She is a past President of the Michigan Developmental Education Consortium. Currently, she serves as Co-Editor for the NADE monograph series.

Shevawn Eaton has been the Director of ACCESS, the academic services component of Northern Illinois University’s special admissions program since 1993. She is a past President of the Midwest (now, National) College Learning Center Association. Prior to working at NIU, Shevawn taught developmental reading courses at Indiana University, where she received her Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration. 

Jeanne L. Higbee has worked in different facets of the field of developmental education since 1974, when she coordinated the Learning Skills Program as a graduate assistant at the University Wisconsin-Madison Counseling Center. Prior to joining the faculty in the General College-University of Minnesota, she taught developmental courses at the University of Georgia for 14 years. She is the 1999 recipient of NADE’s Hunter R. Boylan Research and Publication Award, and she serves as Editor of the NADE monograph series.

Dana Britt Lundell is the Director of the Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy in the General College-University of Minnesota. She received her Ph.D. in Education at the University of Minnesota and currently serves as Co-Editor of the NADE monograph.

Michael O’Hear holds a doctorate in English from the University of Maryland, headed the Transitional Studies program at Indiana-Purdue Fort Wayne for 24 years, and served as Assistant Dean of Arts and Sciences before retiring last year. A former President of the College Reading and Learning Association, he is a frequently published author in areas related to developmental education and learning assistance. He is currently working on an update of Martha Maxwell’s 1995 book on learning assistance assessment.

Carol S. O’Shea, the 2001-02 President of the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE), holds a doctorate in Rhetoric and Composition from Bowling Green State University. She has a long history of involvement in developmental education as a faculty member, an administrator, and a public speaker, and has served in numerous capacities in the Ohio Association for Developmental Education (OADE). 

George Otte is former Executive Director of Enrichment Programs at Baruch College (CUNY) and Co-Chair of the CUNY Association of Writing Supervisors (CAWS). He was recently appointed Director of Instructional Technology for the City University of New York. A member of the doctoral faculty in English at the CUNY Graduate Center, he is Co-Editor of the Journal of Basic Writing and Co-Director of Looking Both Ways (a professional development collaboration between college and high school teachers of writing).

Linda Russell is the Co-Coordinator of the Learning Center at Minneapolis Community and Technical College in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Formerly a secondary English and reading teacher, Linda has been an instructor in the Reading/Study Skills department at MCTC since 1988. She is currently the President of MNADE.

Norman A. Stahl serves the field of developmental education currently as the Chair and Professor in the Department of Literacy Education at Northern Illinois University with earlier service at Georgia State University, the University of Pittsburgh, and San Francisco State University. He has been the President of the College Reading Association, the Chair of the American Reading Forum, and now he is the Historian for the National Reading Conference. His published works on the history of developmental education as well as on other field-related topics have appeared in our journals on a regular basis over the years. Stahl points out that he began his postsecondary career as a developmental studies student at the City College of San Francisco.

David V. Taylor has served as Dean of the General College at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities campus since 1989. Prior to coming to the General College, Dr. Taylor was the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Minnesota State University System Office. In addition to a variety of faculty and administrative positions held over the past 30 years, Dr. Taylor, an historian by training, has written and lectured extensively on the migration and settlement of African Americans in Minnesota. His career in postsecondary education has encompassed leadership in both academic affairs and student services. He is active in many community outreach initiatives and serves on several non-profit boards.

Pamela Thomas earned her doctorate in Educational Psychology at the University of Georgia (UGA) following a productive career teaching K-12 mathematics. She recently retired as a faculty member of UGA’s Division of Academic Assistance. For 10 years she taught developmental courses in math and problem solving, and, more recently, was well-known in the Athens community for teaching college algebra on television. She has co-authored numerous articles related to breaking down barriers to achievement in mathematics.

Linda Thompson is Director of Student Support Services and Associate Professor of Psychology at Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas. She is the immediate past President of the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) and holds the Ed.D. degree in Higher Education from the University of Memphis, where her dissertation research focused on the effect of centralized vs. decentralized developmental education program organization on student retention and achievement. She received her M.Ed. degree in Counselor Education from the University of Arkansas. She is the Editor of the Journal of the Arkansas Association for Developmental Education and is a past President of ArkADE. Thompson was honored to receive the 2000 LAANE (Learning Assistance Association of New England) award for Outstanding Service to Developmental Students. She is also a graduate of the Kellogg Institute where she received certification as a Developmental Education Specialist. 

Cathrine Wambach is an Associate Professor in the General College of the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on using computer assisted mastery methods for teaching introductory psychology, student motivation, and the outcomes of developmental education programs. She is a past President of the Minnesota Association for Developmental Education (MNADE).  

Lori-Anne Williams is the Coordinator of the General College-University of Minnesota Grants Office. During the past two years, grant activity at General College has risen more than 80%. Prior to working at the University of Minnesota, Lori-Anne managed the Wayside Theater (Middletown, VA) and the Playwrights’ Center (Minneapolis) and was Manager of communications and grants for the YWCA of Minneapolis.

Research in Developmental Education: What Should We Do and How Can We Do It?

Summarized by Hunter Boylan & Shevawn Eaton, Session Co-Leaders
Home Group: Lois Bollman, Nancy Bornstein, Thomas Brothen, Mary Deming, Dana Lundell

Although the practice of developmental education can be traced back to 1849 (Brier, 1984), research in developmental education is a relatively recent phenomenon. The first major national study of developmental education was carried out under a Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant in the early 1970s (Donovan, 1974). Further studies by Cross (1976), Roueche and Snow (1977), Roueche and Baker (1987), the National Center for Educational Statistics (1996), Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham (1997), and McCabe (2000) have advanced our knowledge of the field dramatically. Although what we have learned through research in developmental education during the last few decades is significant, what we need to learn in the future is awesome. 

Several authors have noted that there is a dearth of quality research in developmental education. In their review of research studies in developmental education, O’Hear and MacDonald (1995) found that there was not only a limited amount of serious research in the field, but that much of what existed utilized flawed methodology. This sentiment was echoed by Norton Grubb (1998), who not only criticized the quality and quantity of research in the field but also claimed, “The evidence [in support of developmental education] is sparse, and partly it’s for lack of trying” (p. 15). In summarizing their review of the literature and research in developmental education, Koski and Levin (1999) pointed out, “At bottom, however, the varieties of remedial programs are many and diverse and more research into the efficacy of such programs is needed” (p. 50).

In response to this need, the General College’s Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy at the University of Minnesota sponsored an invitational conference on the future of developmental education in April of 2000. A major topic at this conference was research in the field of developmental education. This paper presents the results of conference discussions on future directions for research in the field.

What We Need To Do Students, Programs, and the Institutional Culture

There was consensus among conference participants that we need to better understand the relationship between the culture of developmental education and the culture of institutions in which it takes place. Kuh and Whitt (1988) point out that espoused values of an institution may not be in alignment with the enacted values and beliefs inherent in the experiences of students when they encounter institutional attitudes, policies, and procedures. Students leave an institution or fail for a variety of reasons, but by using a cultural lens to examine their experience, we may find that the reasons are grounded in a sociocultural context as well as psychological or academic (Kuh & Love, 2000).
It is quite possible that there is a serious mismatch between the culture of our field and the culture of our institutions. The culture of developmental education, for instance, is extremely egalitarian. It promotes access to postsecondary education for nontraditional and underprepared students and provides opportunities for these students to be successful. On the other hand many institutions, particularly universities, remain elitist. They seek to restrict access to students who are most likely to be successful with a minimum of support. Even among community colleges that supposedly espouse a philosophy of open admission, there are many who question the presence of students who are not fully prepared for college. It is possible that the dynamic tension that is created between excellence and access creates cultural fragmentation and ultimately student alienation.

At the same time, developmental education often serves as the link between entering students and the culture of the institution. Developmental education is frequently the first institutional experience for nontraditional students, and whatever they learn about their institutions is mediated by their experience in developmental programs. In spite of this, the link between the culture of developmental education and the culture of the institutions remains unexplored. We do not know, for instance, if developmental educators understand their own culture or how it interfaces with that of their institutions. We do not know if developmental programs are more or less successful if they are aligned with the fundamental attitudes and beliefs that shape institutional culture. We do not know the extent to which developmental programs help students adjust to institutional expectations. Conference participants agreed that the entire issue of developmental education and institutional culture, particularly as it reflects student and faculty expectations, is a critical one deserving more attention by researchers.

In line with this, we also need to define such issues as academic literacy. How do students learn the values and beliefs, policies and procedures, rituals and symbols of the institution? In what ways, positive and negative, are they exposed to them? In addition, as students learn to navigate through the institution, how then do they acquire the literacy for their matriculation and chosen discipline? What, for instance, does it mean to be academically literate, literate in the minutiae of matriculation, literate in a particular discipline, or literate in the culture of the institution? We also need to know the impact of the presence or lack of such literacy on students. Does such an understanding effect student attitude about the institution, persistence, or academic success?

Finally, we need to develop ways of identifying how our programmatic culture is similar or dissimilar to that of our institutions, and how to measure this. The essence of culture can be examined through observable materials, artifacts, values, basic assumptions, and beliefs (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Some of the artifacts or symbols that we use to represent our beliefs and values include (a) perception of philosophy and purpose of postsecondary education; (b) documented philosophy of teaching and learning; (c) models, methods, and approaches of teaching; (d) mission statements, goals and objectives; (e) strategic plans; (f) views and perceptions of students; (g) reward systems for professionals and faculty; and (h) orientation of students and its content. Comparison may help us determine the ways in which program and institutional cultures might be similar or dissimilar. These topics might form the basis for future studies on developmental education and the institutional cultures in which it takes place.

Other Research Issues
Although colleges and universities do a great deal of assessment of incoming students, the overwhelming majority of this assessment is designed to test students’ cognitive skills and abilities. Russell (1997) reported that 26 states currently require that incoming college and university students be given assessment tests measuring cognitive skills. None of these states, however, required any assessment of students’ noncognitive characteristics. Bloom (1976) pointed out that as much as 25% of how well students perform is determined by such noncognitive characteristics as attitude toward learning, motivation, or locus of control. More research is needed to identify the noncognitive characteristics of developmental students and how these impact upon learning and retention. Psychological, social psychological, and cultural models of college student retention theory all offer alternative ways to examine the success of developmental students that go beyond academic performance or predictors (i.e., Bean & Eaton, 2000; Kuh & Love, 2000; Tierny, 2000).

State and institutional policies may also have an impact on the performance of developmental students. Russell (1997) has attempted to identify this impact and concluded that there are few efforts to measure the results of state policies on reducing or increasing the need for developmental education or on improving the performance of developmental students.   

One such effort was recently undertaken by Ansley Abraham of the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). Abraham (2000) studied policies affecting developmental education in 16 southern states and found that state policies, particularly those on assessment and placement, have a great deal of impact on the need for developmental education. Given the extent of this impact, Abraham called for states to maintain better and more consistent data on the effects of developmental education policies, the costs of developmental education, and assessment and placement standards.

Institutional policies on developmental education may also have an impact on the performance of developmental students. Particularly important are institutional policies on such issues as: (a) taking remedial and regular curriculum courses at the same time; (b) offering various types of credit for developmental courses; (c) having a centralized or decentralized approach to developmental education; (d) grading of developmental courses; (e) establishing and enforcing attendance policies; (f) permitting late registration for classes; (g) requiring training for adjunct faculty; (h) providing orientation to incoming students; (i) providing assessment to all entering students; (j) integrating student development and developmental education; or (k) requiring placement based on assessment.

Conference participants also believed there may be some value in revisiting classic research studies to determine if their results are still valid for today’s developmental students. There was general agreement among participants that contemporary developmental students may be vastly different from those of previous decades. They are certainly much more diverse in terms of ethnicity, race, class, age, language, and culture. Many of the assumptions made by developmental educators based on prior research or prior experience may no longer be justified given the increasing diversity of developmental students. In addition to revisiting classic research to determine if our assumptions are still valid, the increased diversity of our students may also argue for greater research on the issue of cultural background.

Barriers to Doing What Needs to Be Done

Calls for more research on any topic under consideration typify the conclusions of research articles and doctoral dissertations in most fields, and developmental education is no exception. Answering such calls, however, represents a classic case of something being far easier to say than to do. There are many barriers to the expansion of research in developmental education.

O’Hear and MacDonald (1995) call for more research by practitioners rather than research professionals. This is, undoubtedly, an idea with considerable merit. Unfortunately, the very nature of their practice prevents practitioners from doing research. Developmental educators frequently have among the highest course loads of any academic professionals. Their disciplinary training often does not equip them to engage in educational or psychological research. 

In addition to these factors, developmental education is one of the few fields in postsecondary education where teaching is valued above research. This is particularly true because much of the developmental education that takes place in the U.S. is done at community colleges, where research is neither encouraged nor rewarded. The National Center for Education Statistics (1996) reports that although 99% of community colleges offer developmental courses, only 70% of universities offer them. 

Furthermore, whether they teach courses in a community college or work in a university learning center, developmental educators are typically more student-oriented than research-oriented. They would much rather invest their time in serving students or improving their courses than in reviewing the literature, gathering data, conducting research, or writing their findings. 

Even those who are expected to do research as part of their faculty responsibilities may not be inclined or encouraged to study developmental education. Professors of English or mathematics, for instance, often consider the study of developmental education to be outside of their field. Research on teaching and learning issues is seldom valued in disciplinary communities as much as is research within the discipline. As a result, many disciplinary journals are reluctant to publish articles on developmental education even if scholars in the discipline should engage in such research. 

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that there has traditionally been relatively little federal money available to support research in developmental education. This has also been true for private foundations. Not since the Exxon Education Foundation funded the National Study of Developmental Education (1989-1995) has there been any serious foundation interest in supporting research in developmental education. All these factors make it difficult to promote research in developmental education.
Ways of Overcoming Barriers

Even though there are many barriers to expanding research in developmental education, such expansion is still possible. It is simply necessary for developmental education professionals to consider more creative ways of generating and collecting data, increasing our collaboration, and disseminating our findings.

Collecting and Analyzing Data

The institutional research and institutional effectiveness offices of college and university campuses already collect and analyze a great deal of data. Frequently this data is relevant to developmental education. Often data on developmental education can be collected as part of other institutional research and effectiveness studies. Developmental educators can improve the data available for research in the field by forming liaisons with institutional offices responsible for collecting data. By working with these offices, they can encourage analysis of developmental education outcomes as part of the institutional study process. 	

Although most developmental educators collect some kind of data about their programs and about student performance, they usually do not organize the data collection process in a way that makes it easy to share information with their colleagues. They do not select criteria for program evaluation that are consistent with criteria used in other programs. When developmental educators do collect data for program evaluation purposes, they need to make greater efforts to insure that their data is consistent with others. Examples of the data that might be collected and used for comparative purposes include: (a) student completion rates (with a grade of C or better) in developmental courses; (b) student progression rates through multiple levels of developmental courses; (c) student pass rates in courses taken following developmental education; (d) short and long-term retention rates for developmental students; (e) student pass rates in courses for which developmental students were tutored; (f) percent of institutional graduates who participated in developmental education; (g) grade point averages of developmental education participants compared to nonparticipants; and (h) retention rates of developmental education participants compared to nonparticipants. 

Such data might also be broken down according to student demographic characteristics in order to determine the impact of developmental education on particular groups of students. If all developmental programs collected comparable data, it would be far easier to evaluate the impact of developmental education across programs, states, and regions. It would also be easier for programs to turn their evaluation reports into meaningful presentations at local and regional conferences.

State higher education executive offices also collect data on developmental education. Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Tennessee, and Texas, to name only a few, have all undertaken statewide studies on developmental education outcomes. Unfortunately, these studies are rarely shared with rank and file developmental educators and are rarely presented at state or national developmental education conferences. Throughout the country, there is a great deal of statewide data available on developmental education. Developmental educators simply need to be more aggressive in capturing this data for research purposes.

Increasing Collaboration

Developmental educators may lack the expertise necessary to do many kinds of research studies. They may lack the time to organize, analyze, and report the results of their own program data. But these factors should not prohibit them from collaborating with others to improve the amount and quality of research in the field. There are several ways in which developmental educators may collaborate with others in promoting research.
Developmental educators at institutions offering graduate programs should work more closely with graduate faculty to encourage research in the field. Graduate students do a great deal of research for classes, for masters theses, and for doctoral dissertations. These students are frequently searching for research topics, programs to study, or databases to analyze. Because there is so much research yet to be done in the field, studying developmental education provides a unique opportunity for graduate students to do original research. Collaboration between the campus developmental education program and graduate departments in education, psychology, and sociology can be a valuable method for improving research in the field.

There are also four graduate programs in developmental education at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, Grambling State University in Louisiana, National-Louis University in Illinois, and Southwest Texas State University in Texas.  Developmental programs in these and neighboring states might wish to collaborate with these graduate programs in promoting research. Local developmental programs might provide samples of students for case studies, multiple sections of developmental courses for comparisons of teaching techniques, or access to program and campus databases for research purposes.     
State developmental education associations can also collaborate with state higher education executive offices to promote research in the field. They can contribute the practical expertise of their members to the design of statewide research projects. They can help identify the sorts of information that would be most valuable to practitioners and researchers in the field. They can volunteer their own programs as case studies to analyze data collection techniques or study the impact of various state policies on developmental education. They can volunteer their expertise to assist in the analysis of data collected in statewide studies.  

Sharing Findings

National professional associations in developmental education will probably have to take the lead in disseminating research information to the field. There are many ways in which they can do this. The National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) and the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) certification programs, for instance, require participating programs to provide a great deal of documentation and data on program activities. This information, if organized properly, could provide a ready-made database to identify the state of the art in the field. Such a database might be disseminated through association web sites or through association publications. Professional associations might establish national database on various areas of developmental education. Using data consistent with criteria used to evaluate most developmental programs, this database could be used to compare outcomes and establish performance baselines.

Although it is difficult to find federal or foundation funding for major studies of developmental education, it might be possible for professional associations to contribute to the funding of pieces of larger research projects. Such funding could be packaged with each professional association funding a component of particular interest to its members. NADE, for instance, might fund a component on instruction while the National College Learning Center Association (NCLCA) might contribute to funding a component on learning assistance.

Professional associations might also encourage research by insuring that relevant state or regional reports are shared through Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and other research databases. They might also share their conference proceedings with ERIC and other similar research databases.

As a minimum, individual developmental programs might post their evaluation reports on web sites for access by others. Professional organizations may be able to coordinate a reference system for such sites and reports, collecting links to various institutional data. In addition, individual programs might agree to systematically share their data with programs at other comparable institutions.

Conclusion

The fact that research on developmental education is being conducted by reputable institutions and associations enhances the image of the field. The fact that this research can be used to design programs, select interventions, or modify program activities enhances the professionalism of the field. The fact that we can identify what we need to learn enhances the possibilities that it will, indeed, be the subject of research. In the last 25 years, all of these things have happened, and the field of developmental education has profited as a result.

The challenges remaining before us are not only to expand research in the field and expand the number of professionals involved in the research process, but also to expand the number of practitioners who use this research to guide their actions. Whatever efforts we put into planning, conducting, and disseminating research should be guided by the knowledge that the end users of this research are practitioners. As Pat Cross (1991) points out, “Research without practice is empty and practice without research is blind.” 
Not only do more practitioners need to be involved in research, but more researchers need to target their efforts to practice. By so doing, both groups can contribute to the enhancement of professionalism and practice in the field of developmental education.

References
Abraham, A. (2000).  Reducing remediation: What progress are states making.  Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Bean, J., & Eaton, S. (2000).  A psychological model of college student retention.  In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61).  Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boylan, H., Bliss, L., & Bonham, B. (1997).  Program components and their relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 2-9.

Brier, E. (1984).  Bridging the academic preparation gap: An historical view. Journal of Developmental Education, 8(1), 2-5.

Cross, K. P. (1976).  Accent on learning.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cross, K. P. (1991). Classroom research: Empowering faculty.  [Videotape] Berkeley, CA: College of Education, University of California. 

Donovan, R. (1974).  FIPSE National Project II: Alternatives to the revolving door. Bronx, NY: Bronx Community College.

Grubb, N. (1998, January).  From black box to Pandora’s Box: Evaluating remedial/developmental education.  Paper presented at the Conference on Replacing Remediation in Higher Education, National Center for Postsecondary Improvement: Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Koski, W., &  Levin, H. (1998).  Replacing remediation with acceleration in higher education:  Preliminary report on literature review and initial interviews. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Kuh, G., & Love, P. (2000).  A cultural perspective on student departure.  In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-212).  Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 

Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. (1988).  The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and universities.  ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. 

McCabe, R. (2000).  No one to waste: A report to public decision makers and community college leaders.  Washington, DC: Community College Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1996).  Remedial education in higher education institutions, Fall, 1995.  Washington, DC:  Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
O’Hear, M., & MacDonald, R. (1995).  A critical review of research in developmental education: Part I.  Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2), 2-6. 

Roueche, J., & Snow, G. (1977). Overcoming learning problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roueche, J., & Baker, G. (1987). Access & excellence.  Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Russell, A. B. (1997).  Statewide college admissions, student preparation, and remediation:  Policies and programs. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.

Tierny, W. G. (2000).  Power, identity and the dilemma of college student departure. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 213-234).  Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Best Practices for Developmental Education

Summarized by David Caverly & Linda Russell, Session Co-Leaders
Home Group: Carl Chung, Irene Duranczyk, Carol O’Shea, Cathrine Wambach

How do we best prepare developmental students for the rigors of higher education? Are some instructional and program practices better than others? We often are asked those questions by colleagues, administrators, and the general public, and we continually ask those questions ourselves in the context of our own programs.

To find answers, we look to research for documentation of practices that can provide effective developmental education. Although there is no single recipe for “what works,” or is “best practice,” we will share what both personal experience and research has been shown to be effective. We agreed upon six practices: (a) using multiple assessments and evaluation, (b) addressing the interaction between cognitive and affective dimensions of learning, (c) examining multiculturalism within the developmental education curricula, (d) providing a variety of delivery systems, (e) establishing effective organizational communication, and (f) encouraging ongoing professional development. The practices are explored with examples offered for their application in specific content areas, followed by a brief summary for a future plan of action.

Using Multiple Assessment and Evaluation Procedures

Assessment is a collection of data about students to determine placement, success within and after instruction, and the need for support (Boylan, Bonham, White, & George, 2000). Evaluation is a collection of data about programs to determine if programs are providing students the support they need. Both are necessary for a successful developmental education program. 

Research over three decades (Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Grant & Hoeber, 1978; Roueche, 1983) has found that successful developmental education programs conduct mandatory assessment. Subsequently, in a survey of recent college developmental education programs, the National Center for Educational Statistics (1996) found that 60% required mandatory assessment, and 75% required students to enroll as a result of that assessment. Similarly, Boylan et al. (2000) have documented the connection between program evaluation and program effectiveness.

Still, assessment and evaluation must be judged on how each of us defines “success.” Many use standardized test performance, the first semester grade point average when taking a majority of college level courses, cumulative grade point average over two or three semesters, or retention to graduation. Some take another tack and look at transfer of passing a developmental course to passing a follow-up course, or passing a high-risk course. Whichever summative evaluation criteria are chosen, they need to be validated against local values and needs. Ultimately, decision makers and funders will be local.
Addressing the Interaction Between Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Learning
Assessment and evaluation typically are used to measure the cognitive elements of reading, writing, math, and study skills. Recent research, however, has documented an interaction of the cognitive and the affective domains (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), which has been documented within effective practice. This interaction can be described in terms of four major components: motivation, attribution, self-efficacy, and epistemological beliefs (Levin & Koski, 1999; Nist & Holschuh, 2000; Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998).

Nist and Holschuh (2000) specifically address the unique interaction of these components as they relate to the development of appropriate learning strategies and academic skills. Because the outcomes of learning are highly contextual and situational for students, tasks that foster a metacognitive awareness of their own purposes, processes, beliefs, and motivation for directing and assessing their own learning activities provide an essential foundation for developmental programs. Instructors, courses, and programs can effectively support and address students’ needs in these areas through such activities as peer and faculty mentoring (Erickson, 1998), learning communities (McCabe & Day, 1998), and activities that promote students’ engagement with multiple perspectives and responsibility for their own knowledge construction (Pugh, Pawan, & Antommarchi, 2000).

Examining Multiculturalism Within the Developmental Education Curriculum

Recent research has documented the need for a closer examination of the principles of multiculturalism for students and the curriculum throughout the continuum of education from K-12 through higher education (Banks & Banks, 2001). This includes respect for diversity in such areas as ethnicity, race, religion, language, sexual orientation, age, gender, class, and ablism. All students are served when both teachers and students see the benefits of incorporating a multicultural curriculum and pedagogy. Research demonstrates that curricular principles and classroom practices must address and include the knowledge bases of all students (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992), build on social literacies as well as academic literacies (Williams & Snipper, 1990), and incorporate activities that improve metacognitive abilities of students and draw upon literacies in students’ native languages and cultures (Garcia, Jimenez, & Pearson, 1998). Pintozzi and Valeri-Gold (2000) and Boylan et al. (2000) recount specific ways to address diversity within successful developmental education programs. These approaches include immersing all students in the principles and practices of multicultural education, as well as using inclusive and cooperative learning activities like jigsaw groups, literature circles, and dyads.

Using a Variety of Effective Delivery Systems

Developmental education programs are prolific in postsecondary education. A recent survey found 104,000 higher education personnel serving 3.8 million students or 30% of those enrolled (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1999). This statistic breaks down into 100% of two- year colleges surveyed, 81% of four-year colleges, and 94% of colleges with high “minority” enrollment. The results show that a common practice is to offer developmental courses with 78% offering reading, writing, and math courses. Typically institutional credit (applicable to full-time status but not toward graduation) was offered by 70% of these schools with only 11% offering elective degree credit (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1996). Degree credit was more prevalent in two-year colleges (80%) than four-year colleges (50%). Roueche and Roueche (1993) linked the offering of degree credit to more successful programs.

Is any one delivery approach more effective? Most developmental programs follow a traditional approach of delivery. Often this includes credit or noncredit developmental coursework, learning assistance centers, and tutoring. Over their history, developmental courses have come under attack as taking too long, costing too much, and holding back students from making progress. Boylan (1999) challenged these criticisms, arguing that the vast majority of students finish developmental courses within a year (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1996), the costs are less than 1% of expenditures on higher education (Breneman, 1998), and students who complete developmental courses are usually successful in college (McCabe & Day, 1998). Levin (1994) argued it is a sound economic investment to help these developmental students succeed.

Maxwell (2000) further explained this discrepancy, suggesting those programs that are successful use sound instructional practice validated by research. Roueche and Roueche (1993) also found that those developmental education programs that provide challenging, course based instruction were more successful.

Strategic Instruction

One example of a sound instructional practice validated by research and practice and typically found in these successful programs is scaffolded, strategic instruction. Two versions of this model are called the “Gradual Release of Responsibility” model of instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) and direct instruction (Nist & Holschuh, 2000). These involve steps beginning with the modeling of strategic cognitive and affective learning strategies, an application of the learned strategy and assessment of its effectiveness in a variety of contexts, and the use of peer-supported activities in which students begin to take ownership and construct a social understanding of these concepts (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, students’ independent application of these strategies in other contexts contributes to their ownership of their learning strategies as they learn to assess their work across a variety of situations.

Successful programs support this instructional model with other scaffolds to make it more effective. These scaffolds include a variety of materials, assignments, and technology that can be used to document changes in students’ learning, attribution, and self-efficacy, as well as development of their affective and metacognitive abilities and their overall success. Instructional material and assignments can vary (Armbruster & Anderson, 1984) from being closely aligned to the learning strategy itself, which can be taught through direct modeling, to being less explicit in their connection to the strategies being employed, which can be better understood through guided, peer group, and independent activities. A third scaffold can be technology tools (Caverly & Peterson, 2000). Here students are taught to use these tools to supplement their learning, using idea-mapping programs like Inspiration (Inspiration™, 2001), which is used in reading courses to map underlying text structures and can be used during all phases of instruction with the goal of creating independent practice. Similar technological tools are available for writing, study skills, and math (Caverly & Peterson, 2000). 

Scaffolded, strategic instruction has been demonstrated through a variety of developmental educational delivery systems. Weinstein (1996) has demonstrated success through teaching students in a strategic learning course that emphasizes “skill” (i.e., study strategies) and “will” (i.e., motivation and self-efficacy, self-regulation, and task recognition). Brothen (1992) demonstrated similar success through a mastery learning model with a developmental education course connected to an introductory  psychology course. Short-term (Caverly, Burrell, & McFarland, 1992) as well as long-term (Caverly & Peterson, 1996) transfer was demonstrated when developmental reading was taught using a constructivist, whole-language approach. Improvement in developmental students’ reading, writing, and research skills and attitudes has been found with critical thinking courses and programs (Chaffee, 1992; Elder & Paul, 1997). 

Linkage Models

Additional success has been found with paired, adjunct, or linked courses. Here, developmental students register for a developmental course that supplements the instruction of a regular curriculum course performing as well as nondevelopmental students (Commander & Smith, 1995). Another successful model supported by research is Supplemental Instruction (SI; Martin & Arendale, 1992). Stronger effects have been found for SI courses when students’ internal locus of control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem are considered (Stansbury, 2001). A problem with SI, however, has been for those students who choose not to attend (Commander & Smith, 1995), though it can be overcome through encouragement and incentives (Hodges & White, 2001). 
Alternatives to paired courses include collaborative learning communities, which have also been found to be an effective delivery system (Tinto, 1996). Again, there are many different models for learning communities. In one, students take a collection of courses connected by a theme taught by instructors who work together to teach to that theme. The students work collaboratively to solve problems, study, and complete class projects. Specific intervention is directed toward students’ attitudes. Such instruction fosters greater mastery of the subject matter and higher course grades, requires all students to contribute, and helps students see how they can excel in social settings (Garland & Treisman, 1993). Some learning communities are true residential communities established in residence halls.

Learning Centers

Similar gains have been found in non course-based developmental education delivery systems such as learning assistance centers. Here instruction is organized around a battery of support services ranging from advising and counseling (Miller, 1996), to individualized learning labs (Casazza & Silverman, 1996), to outreach programs (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997). Peer tutoring is a major delivery system of learning assistance with upwards of 70% of two-year and 77% of four-year institutions (Boylan et al., 1994) providing some form of it. Consistently, tutoring has been found to improve success and retention in college courses, particularly when accompanied by strong tutor training (Boylan, Bliss, Bonham, & Saxon, 1995). Peer tutoring also seems to be more acceptable than required developmental reading courses to faculty and state legislatures during budget crunches.

Johnson and Carpenter (2000) outline several other effective nontraditional delivery systems that have been offered, such as summer bridge and academic probation programs, which have been found to improve retention. Freshmen seminar and orientation programs are also effective, varying from a noncredit orientation within the institution to a credit-bearing course in which larger issues are discussed, including college life and the purposes of higher education (Upcraft, 1993). 

Students recently have been enrolling for regular curriculum courses online, and many developmental education programs are supporting them through online developmental education (Caverly & McDonald, 1998). This delivery ranges from online supported courses, to online supplemented courses, to online delivered courses (Caverly & MacDonald, 1999). Students need developmental support for how to learn in this new environment, while the faculty need support in ways to teach with it. 

Establishing Effective Organizational Communication

A fifth best practice encourages continued communication within a developmental education program. To foster this, Roueche and Roueche (1993) and Boylan (1999) advocate a centralized delivery system. With such an organizational scheme, the level of communication between the components of the program is improved (Bogart & Hirshberg, 1993), there is better coordination of services, developmental activities are closely related, the staff gets a clearer sense of direction, the institution’s commitment to the development of learning strategies is emphasized, and administrative time is better spent (Johnson & Carpenter, 2000). A decentralized system can also work if there is a liaison who coordinates communication between the elements and is a champion for the program. 

Similar communication can be engendered within developmental classes as classroom learning communities are developed, students’ values and goals are respected, and tasks are explicit and stable. Supporting this community can be a diverse student population where all voices are respected.

Encouraging Ongoing Professional Development

Maxwell (2000) believes that some of the critics like Adelman (1996) who question the quality of developmental education might have a sound argument. Few of the approximately 104,000 individuals working in developmental education were specifically trained to work with developmental students, or for that matter to teach college students. Only four universities offer graduate training in developmental education; thus, most are trained to teach in specific disciplines or to work with younger or older populations. A recent review of research (MacDonald & O’Hear, 1995) commiserated on the dismal state of research in developmental education. To improve this, the National Association for Developmental Education developed a self-evaluation instrument to prepare developmental education programs to be certified at differing levels. Similarly, the College Reading and Learning Association certifies tutors at varying levels. Still, fewer than 10% of the professionals in the field attend the national professional conferences in developmental education. There is a growing argument for renewable professional certification much like that in other professions (e.g., law, engineering, medicine). Certification for individuals would prepare master teachers who could then serve as mentor teachers to others in a given program. Such a reward system would provide an additional criterion in hiring practices, and participants could be given graduate credit, often raising them on a salary schedule. Topics could vary from adult learning theory; to using technology in the classroom; to strategic teaching in the college classroom; to assessment, evaluation, and research procedures. Developmental programs are only as strong as their professionals (Boylan, 1999; Maxwell, 2000).

Creating a Future Plan of Action

We conclude that one program model will not fit all. Rather than recipes for success, these best practices are guidelines to follow and adapt to fit to particular situational constraints. However, adapted practices cannot be considered effective until they have been evaluated. Still, to evaluate practice without comparing it globally perpetuates tunnel vision. Sharing program success in the state, regional, and national literature as well as at conferences helps to strengthen success through the critical review of peers. In sharing, we all can learn. That process is the best of all practices. 

References

Adleman, C. (1996, October 4). Point of View: The truth about remedial work: It’s more complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A36.

Armbruster, B. B., & Anderson, T. H. (1984). Producing “considerate” expository text, or easy reading is damned hard writing: Reading Education Report No. 46. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of research on multicultural education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bogart, M., & Hirshberg, R. (1993, March). A holistic approach to student retention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Regional Reading and Study Skills Conference, Kansas City, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 499)

Boylan, H. R. (1999). Exploring alternatives to remediation. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(3), 2-8.

Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L., & Bonham, B. (1997). The relationship between program components and student success. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(2), 2-9.

Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L. B., Bonham, B. S., & Saxon, D. P.  (1995). What we know about tutoring: Finding from the national study of developmental education. Research in Developmental Education, 12(3), 1-4.

Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., White, J. R., & George, A. P. (2000). Evaluation of college reading and study strategy programs. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 365-402). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & Bliss, L. B. (1994). Characteristic components of developmental programs. Research in Developmental Education, 11(1), 1-6.

Breneman, D. W. (1998). Remediation in higher education: Its extent and cost. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 1998 (pp. 359-383). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Brothen, T. (1992). Ideas in practice: A developmental education approach to computer-assisted content instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 32-35.

Casazza, M., & Silverman, S. (1996). Learning assistance and developmental education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Caverly, D. C., Burrell, K., & McFarland, J. (1992, November). Evaluation results of a whole language TASP reading program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on Academic Support Programs, Fort Worth, TX. 

Caverly, D. C., & MacDonald, L. (1999). Designing online developmental education courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 34-35.

Caverly, D. C., & McDonald, L. (1998). Distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(3), 37-38.

Caverly, D. C., & Peterson, C. L. (1996, October). Long term effects of a whole language college reading program. Paper presented at the 2nd National Research Conference on Developmental Education, Charlotte, NC.

Caverly, D. C., & Peterson, C. L. (2000). Technology and college reading. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 291-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chaffee, J. (1992). Critical thinking skills: The cornerstone of developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 2-4, 6, 8, 39.

Commander, N. E., & Smith, B. D. (1995). Developing adjunct reading and learning courses that work. Journal of Reading, 38(5), 352-360.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1997). Critical thinking: Crucial distinctions for questioning. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(2), 34-35.

Erikson, L. (1998, February). At-risk student perceptions of the value of their freshman orientation week experiences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Tampa, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 446 540)

Garcia, G. E., Jimenez, R. T., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Metacognition, childhood bilingualism, and reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in theory and practice (pp. 193-219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Garland, M., & Treisman, U. (1993). The mathematics workshop model: An interview with Uri Treisman. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(3), 14-16, 18, 20, 22.

Grant, M. K., & Hoeber, D. R. (1978). Basic skills programs: Are they working? Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hodges, R., & White, W. G., Jr. (2001). Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and Supplemental Instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 43.

Inspiration™. (2001). (Version 6.0) [Computer software]. Portland, OR: Inspiration Software.

Johnson, L. L., & Carpenter, K. (2000). College reading programs. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 321-363). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Levin, H. M., & Koski, B. (1999, January/February). From remediation to acceleration: Raising the bar in developmental education. Change, 31(1), 53-56.

Levin, H. M. (1994). Education and workplace needs. Theory into Practice, 33(2), 132-138.
MacDonald, R. B., & O’Hear, M. F. (1995). A critical review of research in developmental education: Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(3), 8-10, 12, 14.

Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. R. (1992). Supplemental Instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 839)

Maxwell, M. (2000). Foreword. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of reading and study strategy research (pp. vii-xi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCabe, R. H., & Day, P. R., Jr. (1998). Developmental education: A twenty-first century social and economic imperative. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 176)

Miller, K. J. (1996). Developmental education at the college level. Fastback. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 405 763)

Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(1), 132-141.

National Center for Educational Statistics (1996). Remedial education at higher education institutions in Fall 1995. Retrieved August 14, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97584.html

National Center for Educational Statistics (1999). The condition of education, 1999. Retrieved August 6, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/condition99/pdf/section3.pdf

Nist, S. L., & Holschuh, J. L. (2000). Comprehension strategies at the college level. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 75-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years. Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Pintozzi, F. J., & Valeri-Gold, M. (2000). Teaching English as a second language (ESL) students. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 261-290). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pugh, S. L., Pawan, F., & Antommarchi, C. (2000). Academic literacy and the new college learner. In R. F. Flippo & D. C. Caverly (Eds.), Handbook of college reading and study strategy research (pp. 25-42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Roueche, S. D. (1983). Elements of program success: Report of a national study. In J. E. Roueche (Ed.), A new look at successful programs (pp. 3-10). San Francisco,  Jossey-Bass.

Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the open door community college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Stage, F. K., Muller, P., A., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms. What does learning theory have to say? ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 26, No. 4. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 422 777)

Stansbury, S. (2001). Accelerated learning groups enhance Supplemental Instruction for at-risk students. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 20-22, 24, 26, 28, 40.

Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for Higher Education, 25(1), 1-6.

Upcraft, M. L. (Ed.). (1993). Designing successful transitions: A guide for orienting students to college. The freshman year experience. Monograph Series No. 13. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weinstein, C. E. (1996). Learning how to learn: An essential skill for the 21st century. Educational Record, 66(4), 49-52.

Williams, J. D., & Snipper, G. C. (1990). Literacy and bilingualism. New York: Longman.

Community Partnerships, Collaboration, and Civic Engagement

Summarized by Carol Bader & Jeanne L. Higbee, Session Co-Leaders
Home Group: Tom Dayton, George Otte, Lori-Anne Williams

Among the concerns facing developmental educators  today are: (a) how to better prepare high school students for college; (b) how to ease the transition from high school to college; (c) how to assist students in developing the skills needed to be successful in the world of work; (d) how to contribute to the goal of a better educated work force; (e) how to combat illiteracy; (f) how to promote life-long learning; and (g) how to gain recognition for the important work that developmental educators do, how to gain legitimacy within academe, in the worlds of local, state, and national politics, and in the realm of public opinion. Community partnerships, collaboration with a wide range of prospective colleagues, and civic engagement are ways in which developmental education programs and services can make a contribution to society as a whole while also enhancing opportunities for the achievement of their own goals. The purpose of this thread of the Future Directions meeting was to explore programs that work and to generate ideas for possible implementation by developmental educators throughout the U.S. The following paragraphs summarize key points made by Future Directions participants as they rotated through this thematic discussion group.

Current Issues and Trends

Service Learning

“Service learning” involves developing skills as well as learning about society and the challenges of everyday life through service to others. Some educators fear that a number of service learning projects are in place in institutions of higher education today just because service learning is a trendy concept. These people are concerned that some of the experiences are not truly service oriented and fear that Dewey’s (1939) idea of civic engagement  has been lost. Furthermore, inconsistency or lack of continuity of some projects can cause more harm than good on many different levels. Communities have long memories. A project that fails to live up to its promises can raise barriers for future ideas for years to come. A project that is poorly conceived or abandoned midstream can teach students the wrong lessons about making and honoring commitments. Service learning projects that are not successful can boomerang and turn into a public relations nightmare for the sponsoring organization.

However, there are service learning projects that have been in place for decades and have enviable track records. American River Community College in Sacramento, for instance, has a program of bilingual tutoring that benefits both college students and public school students. This program has been institutionalized for so long no one remembers when it started. Another noteworthy service learning project is the Sacramento Metropolitan Area Reading Tutors (SMART) program. It utilizes objectives and measurable outcomes. SMART provides the outcomes to foundation boards that, in turn, donate money for future projects. Even some professional schools, such as the School of Law at Pepperdine University, have incorporated community projects into their curricula.

Edina High School in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has a program in which students earn a varsity letter in community service for 120 hours of work. Students must document their work, maintain a journal of their experiences, submit a project to inform others about their service learning, and provide references from at least two supervisors. Students participate in national programs like Habitat for Humanity, Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), and Target Market, as well as local projects like tutoring, mentoring, and after school recreational programs. Many high schools and colleges provide similar opportunities for service learning, but Edina’s program is unique in recognizing that community service can be valuable in the development of leadership and collaborative skills, thus meriting the award of a varsity letter. Similarly, it is important that college and university admissions processes begin to place value on students’ long-term commitments to service learning as an indicator of potential for academic persistence and achievement. 

Some states, such as California and Minnesota, have a service requirement for high school graduation. To earn a high school diploma in Minnesota, students must complete 10 hours of service. In many states, volunteers in service projects get certificates and are encouraged to put the experience on their resumes. Certificates encourage more involvement and legitimacy. Course objectives can be printed on the back side of the certificates, so persons such as prospective employers who read them gain insights into the amount of involvement necessary.

Benefits of true service learning are huge. To utilize Dewey’s (1939) terminology, the projects are in “authentic situations.” These experiences help students with career decisions, time management, and goal setting. Sometimes these projects lead to paraprofessional or full-time professional jobs and to lifelong commitments to service. Various four-year institutions have reciprocal agreements with two-year institutions to accept students who have successfully completed service learning courses. Service projects can be positive first-year experiences that help with student persistence, retention, and graduation at the institution (Smith, 2000). From time to time the service learning projects result in donations from the community to the institutions. Often public acknowledgment of the students providing service brings positive recognition not only to the student and institution but also to the collaborating partners. This recognition can be in multiple areas such as the education, business, and civic arenas. 

Partnerships With K-12 Educational Institutions and Businesses

More and more emphasis in education is being placed on collaboration between high schools and colleges. We read and hear terms such as “seamless education” and “K-16” learning. Two of the goals for this seamless education are easier access to postsecondary education and a better educated populace. Some of the most successful long-term partnerships are frequently linked to developmental education, such as federally-funded TRIO programs like Upward Bound and Talent Search. TRIO’s Student Support Services (SSS) and McNair Scholars programs continue to ease the transition to college and to encourage pursuit of graduate-level educational opportunities. Similarly, summer bridge programs (e.g., Stratton, 1998) linked to developmental education enable students to get a “step up” prior to the first semester, with successful programs also providing follow-up advising, support services such as tutoring, and early warning systems throughout the first-year experience.

The General College (GC), a developmental education program at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, hosts myriad community outreach programs emphasizing the importance of K-12 connections with higher education and the work force. For example, the DUGSI Program prepares Somali high school students to meet postsecondary admissions requirements. GC also sponsors the American Indian Math and Science Summer Camp; the national African American Read-In; and Day Community Program, an alternative educational program for high school students; as well as other high school outreach programs. Faculty in GC are committed to including service-learning opportunities in some first-year academic courses, such as social science and writing.
The National Governors’ Association and many businesses have gone on record as wanting a better-educated workforce. Most states have implemented literacy exams in the hope of creating this workforce. However, the literacy exams can be very problematic tests at times. Criticisms include cultural bias and discrimination against students with learning disabilities, especially when tests serve as a barrier to high school graduation for students who have met all other course and grade requirements. 	

Often educators receive conflicting messages concerning academic preparation for students. Some businesses complain that the workforce is not prepared, yet many of these same enterprises are the ones that hire students for too many hours per week. Educators all too often talk with students who work 30 or more hours a week, but who have never read an entire book in their lives. Even though the senior leave program has been eliminated in many school districts, students are still working and are earning high school credit for work. In California, a student can complete high school requirements by taking the GED at age 16. Many students select this option but are not mature enough to handle college. They often fail because they cut class to go to work. They have academic potential but have not learned the skills necessary to persist in a more competitive learning environment. 

In this country we have a dilemma. We want more people to go to college, yet there are social forces in the land working toward keeping people in the uneducated, low wage socioeconomic classes. We have a disconnect between what goes on in school and in the outer world. Businesses, however, cannot be demonized and made to bare the brunt of the education problem. Some business collaborations have turned out to be very good. Nonetheless, business by definition must look at the bottom line. They can do activities for altruistic purposes, but eventually actions must pay off. 

Some effective collaboration programs in California have brought in human resource managers from Intel, Proctor and Gamble, and others, and asked, “What do you want?” These companies have relayed problems with communication, collaboration, and cooperative problem solving, even though employees may be proficient in reading, writing, listening, and math. In some cases, developmental educators (e.g., Griffith, 1999; Longman, Atkinson, Miholic, & Simpson, 1999) have played significant roles in promoting workplace literacy. 

Another activity that has emerged as a result of educational partnering is the idea of dual credit. Some states such as Arizona and Missouri have embraced this concept wholeheartedly. The idea of getting college credit while taking a high school course is appealing. It is cost saving; voters love it, and students love it. But others have commented that this concept may be the single most addictive drug politicians have found in recent history. Sometimes the legislated dual credit programs have many abuses. For example, in Missouri one faculty member receives release time from teaching one course to supervise the dual credit English classes in a territory the size of Rhode Island. The problem becomes, then, how can educators maintain the quality of college courses on high school campuses? High school Advanced Placement (AP) courses have also become very popular, but tend to be more available to students in higher income school districts (Miksch, 2002).

Multiculturalism

Difficulties in basic communication with students are increasing. In New York nearly one-quarter million people are non-English; approximately one-half of the high school students are non-native speakers. At the City University of New York (CUNY), speakers of 138 different languages are present. Fourth and fifth generations in Sacramento still speak only Spanish. Many of these students have lived their entire lives in the United States but are not English proficient. These students often cannot pass barrier exams. 
When defining multiculturalism, we seem to have a need to oversimplify, and we over track and over assess. Consequences emerge from so much testing. The writing process is truncated, and reading is reduced to simple paragraph comprehension. Frequently, under the guise of multiculturalism, programs and the people they serve become stereotyped and stigmatized (Pedelty, 2001). Cultural identification is complex, and problems abound in the educational sector. 

During a time when a college degree is a more necessary ticket for the middle class than ever before, some students still have a difficult time with preparation for college admission. Tracking a student into English as a Second Language (ESL) programs has essentially prevented college preparation for universities in New York. Some states, such as Texas, Kentucky, and Florida, are trying new programs, such as a fifth year of high school, to try to get students prepared to pass state mandated tests. Currently 26 states have exit exams, and other states are moving in that direction.

One participant was appalled by ESL instruction he saw in a high school he visited. The teacher was reading Shane to Asian students. There appears to be a lack of adequate consciousness of ESL research by developmental studies professionals. By the time we get students aged 18 to 19, many opportunities for learning languages easily have been missed. Educators in Canada are doing much research in the area of acquiring second languages. Meanwhile, developmental educators in the U.S. have been influential in creating programs to mainstream non-native speakers of English in institutions of higher education (e.g., Burrell & Kim, 1998; Murie & Thomson, 2001).

Studies from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) are indicating that results on achievement tests are still low for Hispanic and African-American students when compared with White students. This statement is true for reading, mathematics, and science scores (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000). Part of this disparity may be because of language problems, while cultural bias in standardized testing is considered another factor related to this problem. 

Tracking

Just as tracking for ESL students creates quandaries, college preparatory tracking also may be detrimental because it forces students into molds, requiring students at a very young age to make decisions that can affect their entire lives. Schools exist for the good of the community, not for the good of other schools. This type of system tends to close the door rather than accounting for changes in individuals. Such tracking is not a “truth in advertising” approach in which colleges inform students what the best high school approach might be. Instead, it is a permanent directing of people in one avenue from which they may not be able to divert. How has such tracking affected high school dropout rates? When students are placed in tracks that eliminate the prospect of postsecondary education, is the motivation to complete a high school education also diminished? More research needs to be done in this area.

Concerns

Concerns arose about forced collaborations. Those partnerships mandated by legislative measures and social engineering do not seem to work as well as others, yet so much of what we know does work is being used less and less. Good community building comes from evolvement rather than imposition. Definite structure needs implementation at the same time that questions are being answered such as, “Who benefits from this collaboration?” “Are the needs of the students being considered?” and “Is the host community invested in the success of the program?”

Other concerns involved placing our focus on the deliverables. If we begin with what we are able to deliver and focus on those outcomes, then we have unexamined assumptions. One example given of this thinking concerned online degrees. Do we really know how to do this, and do we really know how learning occurs?

Worry was expressed over no time for reflection or “praxis” to use Paolo Friere’s (1998) concept. Again, there seems to be a big drive for oversimplification, which results in cultural or social fragmentation. We seem to have a need to track or compartmentalize while losing sense of vision or the larger picture. Education is more than work force development. Education is for life, not just “green card” preparation. Richard Bolles (2000) in his parachute books lets us know that most of us will have five different careers, not just multiple jobs, in our lifetime. Education is also more than “stand and deliver” traditional teaching. Pat Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman (1996) exhort college faculty to involve more active learning and scholarship into their classrooms. 

Brainstorming Ideas for Future Directions

1. Include in college graduation requirements a community service option.
2. Create task groups representing various constituencies; leadership must be shared.
3. Establish stable funding for partnerships, collaborative efforts, and civic engagement that is part of the infrastructure and tied to function with provisions for ongoing assessment and evaluation.
4. Create a system of transferability of credits across types of institutions, especially in state systems of postsecondary education, including equivalency of developmental education courses.
5. Build collaborations between ESL and developmental education.
6. Publicize what exists. There should be a formal structure in place to facilitate an ongoing dialogue between groups. What is currently being done between K-12 and higher education in different states? What are good models? What other ways is the communication happening? As an example, Ohio has grants available for postsecondary faculty to work with K-12. Upward Bound and other TRIO programs work collaboratively between levels.
7. Encourage more students to complete more college preparation courses. Parents, teachers, counselors, and administrators must realize that the “noncollege prep” students will likely attend college or become involved in some other form of postsecondary education at some point in their lives.
8. Help legislators learn the difference between high school proficiency and preparation for college.
9. Create plans in which colleges can take their placement assessments to the high schools to test juniors. Let the students know how they would place if they were to attend college at that point. Students may see the value of taking more college prep courses or at least try to work on their skills in the meantime.
10. Create a curriculum that eliminates the boundaries between elementary, middle, and high school, and college.
11. Establish smaller student loads in high school so that teachers can give homework that is beneficial to student learning and provide adequate feedback to students. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE;1998) advocates that composition teachers should have no more than 60 composition students per term.
12. Create connections with the community through service learning.
13. Use first-year experience courses as an avenue for service learning projects. 

Recommendations for Action

1. Publicize models for effective interaction between high school and postsecondary institutions by (a) publishing information on National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) and College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) web sites; (b) sharing ideas, data, and other information with state boards of education; (c) establishing NADE and CRLA web sites as links on the private and public school district web sites; (d) working through the teachers’ unions to improve relationships between K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions; and (e) writing articles for publications like Education Today.
2. Encourage education boards for both higher education and K-12 to talk with each other. Initiate peer-to-peer interaction. College faculty must treat public school teachers as equals. There should be and can be shared wisdom. Developmental education faculty can facilitate the bridge between the groups. Involve the developmental education faculty in school-university partnerships, and create professional learning communities.
3. Develop freshman-level service learning opportunities. Follow through with research on retention.
4. Reach out to all people to demonstrate a presence in the communities, collaborate with community groups and social service organizations, and provide child care and low cost tuition to community members who try enrolling in a course.
5. Host community celebrations such as read-ins to bring community members to campus. One example is the Martin Luther King Celebration in Minneapolis.
6. Offer courses through targeted high schools to encourage students to take college courses at their own school 
7. Add community members to developmental education advisory boards and committees. 
8. Include developmental education information in the institution’s alumni newsletter.
9. Build bridge programs that begin in the high school, not just during summers, on the college campus, and continue to provide support throughout the freshman year.
10. Increase articulation. Community colleges and universities need a greater degree of cooperation in providing articulated courses. Dual admissions programs require an even greater degree of partnership between community colleges and four-year institutions. The University of Maryland has a database of course equivalencies. The University System of Georgia now requires not only equivalency but common acronyms and numbering systems across all institutions, including two-year and four-year colleges, research universities, and postsecondary technical schools. 
11. Imitate successful programs. For example, the Better Business Bureau and Chamber of Commerce Scholars Programs have been a forum for advising eighth graders and verifying that these students maintain C averages and take specifically required courses. If the students maintain the average, they receive a scholars’ stamp on their high school transcripts. These stamps give students an advantage in getting jobs with Chamber members. 
12. Initiate grant-writing partnerships.
13. Consider whether, when, and how to involve parents. Students can sign releases to allow parents or caregivers to receive regular reports on progress. Develop newsletters and workshops for parents on how to be supportive of students in college. If students are first generation, then their parents may be even more removed. Remember that there are parents who may not be able to read newsletters, especially if they are only published in English, or may not have Internet access. Think about parent support groups. Keep in mind that some students may not want parents involved, and that this preference may be crucial to their development of autonomy. 
14. Initiate service learning projects. Will America Reads or America Counts be appropriate avenues? Consider ties to already existing literacy programs.
15. Involve Focus Interest Groups (FIG) and learning communities.
16. Create mentorship programs similar to the one in eastern Michigan, in which local high school teachers mentor developmental studies students in the education field. 

Summary and Action Plan

Two major focus areas emerged from the discussions. First, critical to the success of community partnerships, collaboration, and civic engagement is the sharing of information, creating a brokerage for disseminating ideas, and sustaining communication. 
Second, goals must be co-constructed peer to peer from high school to community colleges and from community colleges to four-year institutions.

Action Plan for Developmental Education Organizations

1. Publish a civic engagement guidebook. Communicate goals by using models and examples rather than exhortation and assessment. An example of an entry in the guidebook could deal with high school learning assistance. High schools nationwide tend to lack learning assistance.
2. Provide a clearinghouse for models. For example, CUNY gives a $1000 stipend or graduate course credit for six Saturdays of interaction. California allows flex-time donation to high schools. Some Minneapolis-area schools have monthly professional development days on which the students start school two hours late, attending all classes, but for shorter amounts of time. Faculty use the early hours for development. Some U.S. school districts have intervisitation, through which school faculty visit colleges and college faculty visit high schools. 
3. Sponsor a two-day grant-writing workshop targeting these issues.

References

Bolles, R. (2000). What color is your parachute? 2001: A practical manual for job-hunters and career-changers. New York: Ten Speed.

Burrell, K., & Kim, D. J. (1998). International students and academic assistance: Meeting the needs of another college population. In P. L. Dwinell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Developmental education: Meeting diverse student needs (pp. 81-96). Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education. 

Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance, NCES 2000-469. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP. Retrieved June 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main1999/2000469.asp

Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 Dewey, J. (1939). Intelligence in the modern world: John Dewey’s philosophy. New York: Modern Library.

Friere, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civil courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Griffith, J. C. (1999). The effect of study skills on United States Air Force allied health students. In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expanding role of developmental education (pp. 21-30). Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

Longman, D., Atkinson, R., Miholic, V., & Simpson, P. (1999). Building long-range workplace literacy: The ABC reading apprenticeship and task analysis. In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expanding role of developmental education (pp. 31-41). Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

Miksch, K. (2002). Education law and student access: Why isn’t education a fundamental right? In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell, & I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Developmental education: Policy and practice (pp. 65-76). Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmental Education.

Murie, R., & Thomson, R. (2001). When ESL is developmental: A model program for the freshman year. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), 2001: A developmental odyssey (pp. 15-28). Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmental Education.

National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) College Section Steering Committee. (1998, September 18). Guidelines for the workload of the college English teacher. Retrieved June 3, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncte.org/positions/workload-col.html

Pedelty, M. (2001). Stigma. In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), 2001: A developmental odyssey (pp. 53-70). Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmental Education.

Smith, E. D. (2000). The assessment of civic leadership. About Campus, 5(3), 26-28.

Stratton, C. (1998). Bridge: Summer retention program for pre-college African American students. In P. L. Dwinell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Developmental education: Meeting diverse student needs (pp. 45-62). Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

Shaping Policy and Guiding Practice for the Future

Summarized by Norman Stahl & Martha Casazza, Session Co-Leaders
Home Group: Terence Collins, Michael O’Hear, David Taylor, Pam Thomas, Linda Thompson

How do we as developmental educators walk the thin line that accepts change and welcomes the future while still honoring and building upon the past?  We do so by tapping into and testing the theories, principles, and wisdom upon which the profession rests. We do so by understanding that each generation need not reinvent the wheel, but rather, each must participate in a never-ending change process that has taken society from the stone wheel to the Conestoga wagon wheel to the steel-belted radial tire. 

Participants at the second Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education, sponsored by the General College of the University of Minnesota, cooperatively identified and examined five foci that have impacted the developmental education and learning assistance profession over the years, across the land, and throughout all of the categories of institutions in higher education. These are five foci that are likely to impact the field across the first decade of the new century as well. 

Let us review the group’s shared knowledge and viewpoints on each of these five topics in turn: Diversity, Assessment and Access, Learning from History, Professionalism, and Institutional Mission. Such a review is not intended to be a literature review, but rather a recapturing and interpretation of the best thoughts of the program participants in mass and also serving as the point of departure for future discussions to be held by programs at individual institutions across the land.

Diversity

Our profession’s very existence and the day-to-day activities of developmental education instructors and learning assistance personnel exist because of our institutional commitments to access to higher education for a diverse student population. Although the concept of diversity as well as the definition of those students who make an institution diverse have changed throughout the history of American higher education, up through the waning years of the 20th century, most postsecondary institutions have continued if not strove to become more diverse in student population. Yet as our colleagues met for the second meeting in the spring of 2001, we expressed concerns that the nation’s progress and commitment to providing access to higher education for all individuals making up the American mosaic may be waning. Specific issues identified by the participants include: 
1. Recent attacks on affirmative action in higher education impact negatively the diversity of students, faculty, and staff on campus. 
2. Proposals to shift developmental education from four-year institutions to community colleges will likely result in the loss of diversity in four-year colleges and research universities. 
3. Growth of new-to-English populations in the nation without a similar growth in culturally sensitive policies and academic support systems in many schools for these postsecondary students will exacerbate efforts for retention and graduation. 
4. Failure of higher education administrators to understand that a “one size fits all” model will not provide adequate academic support or student services to a diverse student clientele will limit equal opportunity.
5. Failure of postsecondary institutions to recruit, educate, support, retain, and graduate young men of color—particularly African American males—has a negative impact not only on postsecondary education but on American society as a whole.
6. A lack of general revenue funded PK-16 partnerships that foster the recruitment and promote the success of underrepresented populations in higher education undermines efforts to lower drop-out rates.

The participants do not believe that there is a magic pedagogical bullet that will overcome these particular problems. Nevertheless, we believe that developmental educators and learning assistance personnel must take active leadership roles in educating our campus colleagues that instructional programs and all forms of student support services, including financial aid offices, counseling centers, advising offices, and first-year experience programs must be designed or redesigned to serve all members of a diverse 21st century college population. Higher education must commit once again as in the 1960s and early 1970s to serving students from varied social, economic, cultural, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and age backgrounds, whether they are full-time or part-time students. Members of the postsecondary community must be made cognizant of the fact that when an institution provides quality programming, leading students of diverse backgrounds to successfully complete the college experience, there are exponential societal and financial benefits for the respective service region and state.

The central administration at each institution must provide a system of rewards to those academic units and student support services that successfully implement and deliver programs promoting diversity on campus as well as leading to the graduation of greater numbers of well-educated students from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, central administration, college deans, and program directors must support egalitarian partnership activities that reach out to the PK-12 schools, the business sector, and the varied communities within the institution’s service region so as to promote programs that will lead to greater recruitment and later graduation of a diverse student body. To enter into egalitarian partnerships is to accept members of the greater community, regardless of academic hierarchical status, into the institution’s decision making process, particularly with issues of access.  Finally, it is imperative that students requiring academic support services and developmental programs do not become segregated into community colleges as such actions would likely lessen diversity on university campuses and lead to a lessened graduation rate of students from underrepresented groups.  
         
Assessment and Access

The collaborative discussions on the topic of assessment and access can not be divorced from the discussions covered previously on diversity—particularly as the concept of diversity is far more encompassing than the concepts underlying labels used in the past to talk about populations served by developmental education and learning assistance programs (e.g., nontraditional students, underprepared students). Still, the participants believed that there are particular issues that must be raised at the intersection of assessment and access. Some of the issues seem to be timeless, and hence may be crosses that the profession must bear. Others reflect the political movement towards greater accountability in higher education coupled with respective institutions’ fears of the results of accountability. Specific issues of concern to the participants include:
1.	Postsecondary institutions need to employ meaningful forms of assessment that respect each individual’s life and developmental stage, cultural background, gender, language, race, class, (dis)ability, and so on.
2.	Postsecondary institutions and state offices of higher education need to understand the appropriate role of standardized testing and then develop pedagogically sound and research driven assessment programs that go beyond standardized testing.
3.	Postsecondary institutions need to accept that multifaceted assessment data on students and classes can and should be used as part of program evaluation.
4.	Developmental education and learning assistance programs need to keep abreast of the continuing discussions associated with the issue of mandatory versus voluntary assessment and the placement of students in developmental and content field course work. 
5.	Postsecondary institutions need to direct specific attention to the moral and legal issues associated with the admission of all students to higher education study.
Specific recommendations for programs grappling with issues associated with assessment and access could be organized into three categories. First, the participants advocated the importance of each college developing an institutional philosophy of assessment with underlying policies that consider appropriate use of placement and outcomes based measures, formal and informal measures, individualized and group testing, and cognitive and affective measures. Within the same vein, the participants noted that institutions need to develop policy and acceptable practice on the role of technology in assessment activities and on the use of assessment data in instructional and programmatic decision making. Second, there were several practical policies suggested for the conduct of assessment programming including: (a) preenrollment assessment of secondary students while still enrolled in the high school, (b) development of seamless placement and assessment activities between the community college and the four-year institution, and (c) careful integration of multiple forms of assessment data into the advising function at the entry point to higher education and throughout the learner’s postsecondary experience so as to design more individualized educational schedules and programs. Finally, developmental educators must articulate clearly the principles, research, and best practices underlying a quality assessment program to senior administrators and legislators, and also accept the responsibility of conducting both formal research and informal teacher action research on the effectiveness of assessment activities. 

Learning from History

History is said to be the great equalizer. When we learn from our past, we have a powerful ally in overcoming present day problems and adversaries. Given the nature of the discussion, specific issues were not posited, yet the discussants were able to put forward a set of recommendations based on history that might likely have positive influence for the field. 

First, it can be said that higher education is participating in one of the greatest immigration movements in our nation’s history. Indeed, so many students who are non-native speakers of English are matriculating into higher education programs that scarcely is there a program in the nation that is not serving more ESL students than in the past. Yet programming to meet this growing population is developed over and over again in a happenstance manner as each new wave of non-native English speakers washes across the college commons. Hence, it is important for developmental educators and learning assistance professionals to examine closely the programs offered by institutions for serving ESL populations over the years. There is much to be learned from their successes and equally much from their failures.

In a related manner, the profession has often undervalued the successes demonstrated by Historically Black Colleges, Tribal Colleges, and Hispanic-Specific Institutions in recruiting, educating, and graduating large numbers of young men and women from underrepresented groups, many whom benefited from developmental education and learning assistance programs at their schools. It is time to give the professionals at these institutions their due for their successful pedagogical endeavors and to learn from the research and evaluation that has been undertaken at such schools so that this best practice might be integrated into programs at other institutions. 

Finally, history has shown the importance of the role of professional publication and presentation. It is through such publication endeavors in texts, journals, yearbooks, and presentations at conferences that the field becomes grounded in our theories, principles, methods, and quantitative, qualitative, and historical research. Indeed, publication and presentation is so much more than the process of earning promotion and tenure. Hence, the field must renew its commitment to the conduct of research and dissemination of scholarship on a regular basis, and in doing so it will underwrite the most basic tenet of being a learned profession. Furthermore, it is time to end our parochial approach to presentation and publication by taking on the broader endeavor of both publishing in journals and magazines, and presenting at conferences directed towards higher education administrators, policy makers, and appropriate content field professors. It is our choice whether to be leaders or followers. 

Professional Organizations

A field is said to have come of age when its members think of themselves as members of a profession, and faculty and administrators in the academy believe that such individuals are indeed professionals. When does a field become a profession?  Is such a classification earned or is it simply granted to the membership?  The reality is that if the former action does not happen, the latter one will never happen. One of the primary conditions for becoming a profession is for there to be a professional community in which the individuals may participate, and that in turn empowers the members. Through such a union, the members participate in the generation and dissemination of knowledge, the shaping of policy, the promotion of standards and ethics, and the camaraderie of community. 

During the future directions meeting the participants discussed a number of issues about the nature and importance of the professional community along with its sophistication  and level of maturity. The following issues emerged throughout the discussions: (a) the role of the professional associations in developmental education and learning assistance, particularly in the policy arena, at this juncture of the field’s history; (b) the “plateauing” of our field’s associations such that further growth in the profession can not happen without the economies of force that come with greater cooperation, collaboration, integration, and organization between the individual organizations; and (c) the need for associations as well as for our established developmental and learning assistance educators to actively welcome and acculturate new faculty, part-time faculty, and graduate students into the profession so that a new generation of leaders will further the growth of the field. As these points were pondered, the participants put forward a set of recommendations worth further consideration. First, the participants stated uniformly that there is the need for our associations to become far more sophisticated in our approach to public relations and advocacy with policy makers at both the state and national levels. In doing so developmental educators and learning assistance specialists must identify and then carefully define those intertwined policy and pedagogical issues upon which we should focus our attentions. It is so important to understand that we can not tackle all of the policy issues facing the field, rather we can expend our energy more effectively on key issues that have the greatest impact. As our national and state organizations begin to take more political stands, it is imperative that we learn how to work the system by consulting individuals who are more experienced in the process. The vast majority of us are highly qualified educators but at best neophytes in the ways of political persuasion and lobbying in the halls of the legislature. Equally important, developmental educators and learning assistant specialists must learn how to identify and later communicate regularly with those individuals in each state who are likely to be our proponents, whether these individuals be elected officials, appointed commission members, legislative aides, and so on.   

In working with our legislative and academic leaders, we must go beyond the sharing of success stories of at-risk students by becoming adept at the presentation of research findings and evaluation data demonstrating that our programs lead students to be both successful in higher education and effective members of our society. Finally, we must become far more proactive in dealing with the legislature, the media, and the public at large. Our associations, either individually or through both financial and sweat equity contributions to the American Council of Developmental Education Associations (ACDEA), must develop a tool chest that provides support for those undertaking advocacy activities. Equally important would be the coming together of the associations to develop data fact sheets, policy briefs, policy newsletters (for either internal consumption by members of the profession or external viewing by the advocacy audience), websites, jointly published monographs, and training sessions all focusing on policy and advocacy activities. All too often the field waits until we are placed on the defensive, often with a politically sensitive cause, before we rally around an issue. Rather than always being in a reactive mode, we should be proactively banging our own drum to the tune of our successes. Perhaps here is where we have an important job for members of associations’ emeritus councils.

A second point emerged with the understanding that although there are several highly  successful associations in the field, the loyalties and allegiances held by the members to respective organizations may splinter rather than unite the field at large. As hinted at in the previous paragraphs, it is time for each of our leaders in the field to embrace the larger concept of being a member of a profession over being a member of a particular association, no matter how dear might be one’s membership in an association. Indeed, there is need for greater dialogue among the professional organizations at both the national and state levels. The American Council of Developmental Education Associations (ACDEA) offers promise as an umbrella mechanism for undertaking activities such as the coordination of interstate legislative and policy initiatives, the expansion of program certification or accreditation activities, the development of alliances with regional accreditation agencies and professional organizations such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), and the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), among others. 

A final point focused on activities the associations might undertake through organizational policy and practice. It was noted that the members of the field who undertook much of the leadership in organizing the profession are reaching a senior status in their careers. This population must actively undertake the responsibility for mentoring a new generation of leaders for the profession. As well, this means that many of the field’s senior members must have the willingness to hand over the reigns to leadership, a most difficult task for those in the professoriate. This is not to say that the wisdom that comes with experience and dedication to the field is not a richness that can ever be replaced. Through mentorship, both scholarly and experiential knowledge can be shared by one generation and then shaped by each new generation of professionals to meet the needs of the current period and the future. 

It was also noted that the associations must reach out to an even greater degree to graduate students, part-time instructors, and educators from diverse cultural and language backgrounds so as to welcome them into the field. Such actions are equally important at both the national and the state levels. In fact, the greater success in this endeavor might be accomplished at the state chapter level through a system of rewards and incentives granted by the national associations.    

Institutional Mission

During the deliberations the theme of institutional mission came to the forefront. Across the recent years postsecondary educators and policy makers have raised the question in various venues as to exactly which entities should deliver developmental education services. The participants in the future directions meeting identified several issues that should be considered by the field in the immediate future, as these issues impact developmental education at the micro level and higher education at the macro level. The points of consideration include:
1.	The current trend of moving developmental education services from four-year universities to community colleges promotes an institutional divide hereby threatening the egalitarian mission of American higher education, as well as the promotion of the explicit or de facto practice of funneling or tracking students of color, students new to English, or students of lower economic status away from prestigious public institutions.
2.	The outsourcing of the developmental education mission to proprietary institutions promotes a dearticulation of curriculum and instruction between the developmental education classes and content field classes.
3.	The development of partnership programs between developmental education programs and other entities facilitates meeting more effectively the needs of students and promoting diversity in our colleges. 

Recommendations associated with the aforementioned points must rest upon a simple but regularly overlooked understanding. There will always be misprepared or underprepared students at any particular institution regardless of the academic standards that are thought to exist. The movement of the developmental education mission to a community college from a four-year institution mistakeningly assumes that all developmental students have the same academic needs, and it also assumes that the competencies mastered and knowledge learned in a developmental education class should be free of the culture and the insider knowledge of the home institution. The issue is even truer with proprietary institutions where the developmental education curriculum is more likely to lack appropriate academic and cultural links with the academic departments and the general education courses into which the developmental curriculum feeds.

It is the participants’ contention that outsourcing is less likely to happen when members of the campus community and the governing boards believe that the current developmental education programming is pedagogically effective and financially efficient. Developmental educators must find support for our programs by having colleagues from across campus value our activities. Support comes with personal involvement and effective public relations based on program evaluation and research as noted earlier. The idea of partnership comes forward through advisory committees. Indeed, the concept of partnership between developmental education programs and units internal and external to the institution should be a reality for this decade.   

Developmental educators and learning assistance specialists must be active participants in the development of policies associated with outsourcing of programming to either community colleges or to proprietary schools. When the outsourcing is of a partial nature (i.e., specifically designated courses such as in mathematics), the developmental educators and learning assistance professionals at the outsourcing institution must use the shared governance procedure along with accreditation associated assessment mandates to promote the regular evaluation of off-campus developmental education activities. It becomes the responsibility of developmental educators as members of the field to demand that the appropriate evaluation of outsource programs is undertaken by regional and subject field accreditation agencies. Outsource programs must be based on theory, research, and associated best practices rather than on promises of success on skill-drill assessments or standardized tests and the expectation of a budget advantage. Where outsource programs exist, there must be rigorous evaluation programs in place to determine whether students are both benefiting from outsource programs and moving forward successfully with the postsecondary experience. 

If a four-year institution moves all or part of the developmental mission to the community college, the action should lead to a form of institutional partnership. It is through formation of a partnership team and its advisory board that such programming has the potential to be pedagogically sound or effective. Partnerships must be viewed as two-way streets with all parties being on an equal footing. The degree of equality should not be defined by Carnegie Commission ranking of an institution. Rather the partnership must be based upon the desire to promote the seamless movement of students from one campus to another. The partnership team would measure the articulation between courses at both schools. Developmental educators must be players in defining the partnership playing field. 

On the external front, developmental educators and learning assistance personnel must form more effective lines of communication and develop program initiatives with PK-12 school districts and community-based organizations as feeder institutions, and workplace businesses as the consumers of successful developmental studies students. Members of external constituencies might serve on program advisory committees. Educators from feeder institutions might serve as part-time instructors for developmental studies classes or summer bridge programs. The bottom line is that our endeavors and our influence must go beyond the Ivy Tower. 

Final Thoughts

The conversation on “Shaping Policy and Guiding Practice for the Future” that took place during the second Meeting on Future Directions in Developmental Education, sponsored by the General College of the University of Minnesota, is a snapshot of shared thoughts and concerns of a particular group of developmental educators and learning assistance specialists at a particular time in the field’s history. In another time, in another place, or with even a slightly different body of professionals, the issues raised and the content of the discussions might have been different. Each reader of this document must judge the importance of the issues raised and the practicality of the ideas generated. Through such review, new ideas are generated for shaping policy and inventing the future.

The participants are ever cognizant of the fact that we do not possess some extraordinary individual or shared knowledge or experience base that allows us to formulate the answers to all the issues that impact our field at this time. What we do understand, however, is the value to the profession of meetings such as this one that allow professionals from varied institutions to spend focused and extended time discussing the issues of the day. Hence, we affirm our past beliefs that programs such as the General College at the University of Minnesota, the National Center for Developmental Education at Appalachian State University, and graduate programs focusing on developmental education, such as National Louis University, have an important role to play in the promotion and the transmission of scholarly and practical knowledge through meetings and occasional symposia for developmental educators and learning assistance specialists.

Some Final Thoughts on Theoretical Perspectives—Over Lunch

Summarized by Carl Chung & Thomas Brothen, Session Co-Leaders

After two days of thinking and conversing about Future Directions for Research, Community Partnerships, Future Models, and Shaping National Policy, meeting participants had every right to expect a quiet lunch on the last day. Instead, participants met over the noon meal with General College authors representing the four section headings of the inaugural monograph, Theoretical Perspectives for Developmental Education, published by the Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy (CRDEUL): (a) New and Revisited Theories for Developmental Education, (b) Culture and Constructivism, (c) Literacy and Composition, and (d) Theories for Math and Science. The purpose was to provide meeting participants with an informal opportunity to hear about and discuss a sampling of theoretical perspectives from one exemplary developmental education program. Given the amount of time and effort participants had expended on the Intentional Meeting, the results were surprisingly productive, but not very conducive to a quiet lunch. The conversations were wide-ranging and cut across all four of the above topics. In what follows, we summarize these conversations and then present some final thoughts about theoretical perspectives in developmental education. 

From Deficits and Stigma to Differences

One important thread that emerged from the conversations involved the transition within developmental education from a “deficit model” to a “differences model.” There was general agreement that the stigma experienced by both students and staff of developmental education programs is due at least in part to the former model.

Both themes are firmly grounded in the anthropological and sociological theoretical perspectives and methodologies covered by Pedelty and Jacobs (2001). The meaning of postmodernism and its role in developmental education is highlighted in this and other chapters in this section of the monograph. In contrast to a deficit model, which operates on the assumption that developmental students lack something, the differences model instead emphasizes the rich diversity of unique skills, cultural backgrounds, and aptitudes that students already possess (cf., Jehangir, 2001). In addition to this focus on student assets, the differences model also challenges the deficit model’s implicit reliance on some standardized and unitary norm of academic ability against which students are compared and found wanting. In contrast, the differences model strives to help each student progress and develop, judging that progress in terms of the individual (cf., Lundell & Collins, 1999).

One question that arose concerned how to assess the outcomes of the differences model. After discussing this question, discussants agreed that assessment of this model is currently lacking, but that criteria would probably emerge as data are gathered and analyzed. Overall, the discussants characterized the more open-ended and less deterministic nature of the differences model, in which surprises might emerge, as a potential strength for developmental education.
With Mark Pedelty’s (2000) recent ethnographic work serving as the catalyst, discussants then considered the problem of stigma associated with developmental education. There was general agreement that other researchers should replicate Pedelty’s work and that it should be expanded beyond students to include staff as well. One challenge for developmental education researchers would be to explore how the negative stigma of developmental education could somehow be transformed into something positive. Finally, the discussants considered the idea of a “stealth” developmental education program, which was technically open to all students but nonetheless targeted specific populations for participation. There was general agreement that camouflaging developmental programs in this manner might be one effective way to deal with stigma.

The Usefulness of Theory

Carl Chung and Jeanne Higbee stimulated an active discussion concerning the current state of theory in developmental education by briefly summarizing their contributions to the CRDEUL monograph (Chung, 2001; Higbee, 2001). Although there were a number of distinct threads to the conversation, it became clear that the discussants were trying to clarify and address one central concern, the gap between theory and practice.

That such a gap exists in developmental education is apparent. The recent spate of publications concerning theory and the future of developmental education has been carried out by a small group, including some of the field’s leaders (cf., Higbee & Dwinell,1996). But it is unclear whether calls to explicitly discuss theory have made any impact beyond the relatively few individuals who might actually read such articles. The discussants estimated that out of roughly 35,000 individuals who can be identified as “developmental educators,” probably fewer than 10% attend the national meetings or read the journals. And even if there were more attendees at the national meetings, such an increase would not automatically result in a more significant exposure to theory. The discussants noted that the vast majority of presentations remain focused on presenting what individual practitioners do in their classrooms. There is little, if any, explicit consideration or discussion of the theoretical frameworks informing day-to-day practices. 
In addition, attitudes of the typical developmental education instructor toward theory also bear the marks of this gap. The discussants concluded that, on average, the typical instructor would probably agree with statements like the following: (a) theory just doesn’t apply to my courses, (b) we are focused on actual practices and not theory, (c) theory is not relevant to what I do, (d) theorizing is just cloud gathering, speculating, daydreaming; and (e) theory is just not very useful.

Given that there is such a gap between theory and practice, why is this gap a problem?  That is, why is it something we ought to worry about?  After all, perhaps the focus on practice is simply a distinctive feature of our field— we teach, we tutor, we counsel, and that’s it. From the above summary, the majority of developmental educators appear to be practice-oriented almost to the complete exclusion of theory.

But the presumption that we can teach, tutor, or counsel well without theory is precisely the point at issue. As Hunter Boylan noted during the discussion, some research suggests that if a course is explicitly informed by a theory—any theory—then students tend to be more successful. Additionally, if we do not actively reflect upon the theoretical frameworks that inform our teaching, for example, then we risk putting our pedagogy on “autopilot,” which too often results in just “following the book” or adhering to unexamined discipline-specific norms.

The discussants were in general agreement that one of the major factors contributing to the ongoing disconnect between theory and practice involves the overall quality of working conditions for the average instructor. That is, on average, teaching loads are high, pay and job security are generally low, many positions are only part time with limited benefits, and a great many of our instructors are working in the field only until they finish their degrees and get that “real job.” Given conditions such as these, the average developmental educator has neither the time nor the motivation to engage in theory. 

Another factor the discussants touched on might be called “theoretical inertia.” This occurs when we, as educators, stop growing theoretically. Instead, we continue to view our work through theoretical lenses acquired during the formative period of taking graduate school education courses, be that in the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. Now, although it may be true that theoretical inertia is preferable to a theoretical vacuum, given the current challenges faced by our field, we need to be proactive when it comes to theory and strive to integrate the diverse theoretical strands that constitute developmental education (e.g., Collins & Bruch, 2000). In other words, theoretical inertia contributes to a gap between theory and practice insofar as it allows theoretical principles to fade into the background.

Sources of Theoretical Orientation

A final factor contributing to the current gap between theory and practice in developmental education came up indirectly, as the discussants answered a question posed by Hunter Boylan. Boylan asked each person to say where he or she had learned theory. In response, the discussants generated the following list: (a) taking education courses in graduate school, (b) testing out ideas (research and theory through practice), (c) adapting what they had encountered in another context, (d) participating in community or professional organizations, (e) asking those in specific subject disciplines what their students need from us, (f) talking to colleagues, and (g) being motivated by a feeling of responsibility to our students and their success.

Looking over this list well after the luncheon discussion, it is striking that not a single member of this group of leaders in the field recalled learning theory from articles published in journals such as The Journal of Developmental Education, Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, or other subject-specific “teaching journals.”  Thus, the factor we have in mind here is the lack of a core body of research that is informed by a clearly articulated set of theoretical principles or theoretical framework. This lack of a core body of research, in turn, points to the need for developmental educators to cultivate a “research community” that has a stronger sense of identity, greater influence at conferences and in the journals, and a well-articulated set of theoretical frameworks. 

Finally, the discussants endeavored to brainstorm some concrete suggestions to improve the current anemic state of theory and research in developmental education. In particular, they challenged concerned practitioners in the field to:  (a) support and promote the recent move by NADE to require identification and discussion of a “theoretical framework” as part of its program certification procedure; (b) consider requiring NADE presenters to provide some discussion of the theory or theories informing their work, or at least require a bibliography; (c) focus part of job-candidate interviews on their own theoretical development and how it informs their teaching; and (d) learn about the role of theory in the historical development of our field.

Conclusion

Four Specific Research Questions and the Need to Rethink the Place of Theory in Developmental Education

Overall, if we interpret these discussion summaries as providing snapshots of the current state of developmental education, it becomes clear that the field is in transition, in multiple senses. From the culture and constructivism perspective, we glimpsed the ongoing transition from the traditional deficit model to a postmodernist differences model. From the theory lunch discussion, we glimpsed the ongoing effort to move developmental educators in the direction of theory. The issues raised by dealing with stigma also point to a transition that is in progress, for part and parcel of that discussion is the call to acknowledge the stigma and to move beyond silently accepting negative judgments of our students and our profession. 

Four specific research questions can be formulated based on the lunch conversations we have summarized:
1. What are the attitudes of developmental educators regarding theory? The list of negative attitudes may be accurate but it is still anecdotal. It would be worthwhile to discover whether the average practitioner does in fact hold such views, and, if so, why.
2. Which theoretical principles or frameworks inform current practice in developmental education? This question could be pursued at two levels: by asking practitioners which theories, if any, they believe inform their work, and by observing a representative sample of practitioners to determine which theoretical principles or frameworks are consistent with their day-to-day practices. In fact, just carrying out such a “Survey of Theoretical Practices in Developmental Education” might result in more practitioners actively thinking about theoretical issues. 
3. What are the outcomes of the differences model, and is it possible to assess these outcomes using conventional methods?  Although quite specific in themselves, these questions point to a broader and far-reaching question: Will new theories and their accompanying pedagogies require new standards and methods of evaluation?  
4. What do our home institutions and local communities think of developmental education programs? Given the ongoing attempts by state legislatures to control developmental education programs, the stigma that is felt by students and staff, and the generally unfavorable working conditions in the field, we need to be aware of the negative views we are up against. Such awareness is especially important because these negative perceptions allow those in power to justify their continued attacks. To the extent that they are false, identifying them is the first step in the long-term process of educating our critics and correcting public misperceptions of what we do. 

Finally, we end our summary with an observation and a recommendation. The observation is that recent work exhorting developmental educators to embrace theory, while incisive, nonetheless tends to slip ironically into a deficit model. That is, recent work on theory implies that developmental education is currently lacking something important, that it is theoretically deficient in some meaningful sense. Both theory-shy practitioners and theory enthusiasts tacitly subscribe to a deficit model: the former believe that they do not need what theory has to offer (theory deficit is good) while the latter believe they most certainly do (theory deficit is bad). But underlying the deficit model is a set of unexamined assumptions concerning the nature and function of “theory” itself. This unexamined view presumes that theories are very specific sorts of things that accomplish very specific sorts of goals. Advocates, for example, might see theory as a way of unifying and integrating the diverse strands of developmental education into a coherent whole; by articulating theoretical principles and frameworks, we can finally define developmental education as a bona fide and legitimate academic discipline (with all the rights and privileges thereof). Those who are wary of theory, on the other hand, might see it as a way of imposing some external hegemonic structure that determines practice from “on high” without adequate consideration given to actual students in actual classrooms taught by actual teachers. 

The recommendation has two parts. First, developmental educators should approach issues concerning theory with an asset model in mind. In other words, what theoretical assets do developmental educators bring with them? What are the field’s theoretical strengths, and how can we build upon them? Second, as a means to realizing the first recommendation, developmental educators should become more instrumentalist and pragmatic with respect to theories. Therefore, instead of thinking that theories are disembodied, abstract, universal, and essentially disconnected from the “real world,” we need to think of theories as tools that serve a variety of functions. Theories can, after all, be thought of as depositories of truth, as representational models, or as complex community epistemologies (Chung, 2001). By embracing a more pluralistic view of theories, we stand a better chance of identifying, articulating, and appreciating our theoretical strengths. Informed by a constructive understanding of those theoretical strengths, the day-to-day practice of developmental educators will only get better.

References

Chung, C. J. (2001).  Approaching theory in developmental education.  In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for developmental education (pp. 21–25).  Minneapolis, MN:  Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.
Collins, T., & Bruch, P. (2000).  Theoretical frameworks that span the disciplines.  In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Proceedings of the first intentional meeting on future directions in developmental education (pp. 19–22).  Minneapolis, MN:  Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Higbee, J. L. (2001).  The Student Personnel Point Of View.  In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for developmental education (pp. 27–35).  Minneapolis, MN:   Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Higbee, J. L., & Dwinell, P. L. (Eds.). (1996).   Defining developmental education: Theory, research, and pedagogy. Carol Stream, IL:  National Association for Developmental Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 394 415)
Jehangir, R. R. (2001).  Cooperative learning in the multicultural classroom.  In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for developmental education (pp. 91–99).  Minneapolis, MN:  Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Lundell, D. B., & Collins, T. (1999).  Toward a theory of developmental education:  The centrality of discourse.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.),  The expanding role of developmental education (pp. 3–20).  Morrow, GA:  National Association for Developmental Education.

Pedelty, M. (2000).  Stigma.  In J. L. Higbee (Ed.), 2001: A developmental odyssey (pp. 53–70).  Warrensburg, MO:  National Association for Developmental Education.

Pedelty, M., & Jacobs, W. (2001).  The place of “culture” in developmental education’s social sciences.  In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives for developmental education (pp. 75–90).  Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Bibliography of Suggested Readings

I.	Future Directions for Research

Arendale, D. R. (2000). Strategic planning of the National Association for Developmental Education. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(3), 2-4, 6, 8, 10.

Boylan, H. R., Saxon, D. P., Bonham, B. S., & Parks, H. E. (1993). A research agenda for developmental education: 50 ideas for future research. Research in Developmental Education, 10(3), 1-4.

Damashek, R. (1999). Reflections on the future of developmental education, Part I. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 18-20, 22, 25.

Damashek, R. (1999). Reflections on the future of developmental education, Part II. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(2), 18-20, 22.

Gebelt, J. L., Parilis, G. M., Kramer, D. A., & Wilson, P. (1997). Retention at a large university: Combining skills with course content. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(1), 2-4, 6, 8, 10.

Hagood, M. C. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 311-328.

Lundell, D. B., Higbee, J. L. (2001). Theoretical perspectives for developmental education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education, General College, University of Minnesota.

Stahl, N. A., Simpson, M. L., & Hayes, C. G. (1992). Ten recommendations from research for teaching high-risk college students. Journal of Developmental Education, 16(1), 2-4, 6-8.

Stratton, C. B. (1998b).  Transitions in developmental education: Interviews with Hunter Boylan and David Arendale.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 25-36).  Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Troyka, L. Q. (2000). How we have failed the basic writing enterprise. Journal of Basic Writing, 19, 113-123.

II.	Future Models, Best Practices, and Alternative Delivery Systems

Anton, H. F., Dooley, J. L., & Meadows, D. C. (1998).  Developmental educators as Supplemental Instruction providers: The next step.  NADE Selected Conference Papers, 4, 6-7.
Arendale, D. (1998).  Increasing efficiency and effectiveness of learning for freshman college students through Supplemental Instruction.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 185-197).  Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Best, L., & Lees, B. (2000).  A vision for skills development: The general education program at Kean University.  Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 16(2), 119-122. 	

Bidgood, P. (1994). The success of Supplemental Instruction: Statistical evidence. Birmingham, UK: Staff and Educational Development Association. Retrieved January 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.umkc.edu/centers/cad/si/sidocs/pbstat94.htm

Blinn, J., & Sisco, O. (1996).  “Linking” developmental reading and biology.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 2, 8-9.

Boylan, H. R. (1999). Exploring alternatives to remediation. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(3), 2-4, 6, 8.

Bullock, T., Madden, D., & Harter, J. (1987).  Paired developmental reading and psychology courses.  Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 3(2), 22-29.

Byrd, E. H., & Carter, E. C. (1997).  Study-reading for paired courses.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 3, 1-3.

Carter, J. A., & Silker, G. L. (1997).  Academic enhancement groups:  Transformational process for academically deficient students. National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 3, 7-8.

Center for Supplemental Instruction (1998). Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from The University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions from across the United States. Kansas City, MO: Center for Supplemental Instruction, University of Missouri-Kansas City. Retrieved  January 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.umkc.edu/centers/cad/si/sidocs/sidata97.htm

Chickering, A. W., & O’Connor, J. (1996).  The university learning center: A driving force for collaboration.  About Campus, 1(4), 16-21.

Commander, N. E., Callahan, C. A., Stratton, C. B., & Smith, B. D. (1997).  Adjunct courses and Supplemental Instruction: A ten step workshop.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 3, 14-16.

Commander, N. E., Stratton, C. B., Callahan, C. A., & Smith, B. D. (1996).  A learning assistance model for expanding academic support.  Journal of Developmental Education, 20(2), 8-16.

Commander, N. E., & Smith, B. D. (1995).  Developing adjunct reading and learning courses that work.  Journal of Reading, 38(5), 352-360.

Cross, K. P. (1998). Why learning communities? Why now? About Campus, 3(3), 4-11.
Culbertson, D. L., & Johnson, P. C. (1994).  Winning strategies through individualized learning in the success center.  Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of National Association for Developmental Education, 3-5.

Dimon, M. (1981).  Why adjunct courses work.  Journal of College Reading and Learning, 21, 33-40.

Farmer, V. L., & Barham, W. A. (1996).  Selected models of developmental education programs in postsecondary institutions.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 2, 10-11.

Hafer, G. R. (2001). Ideas in practice: Supplemental Instruction in freshman composition. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 30-32, 34, 36.

Hodges, R., & White, W. G., Jr. (2001). Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and Supplemental Instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 2-11.

Kenney, P. A., & Kallison, J. M. (1994). Research studies on the effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction in mathematics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved January 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.umkc.edu/centers/cad/si/sidocs/jbmth194.htm

Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. (Eds.). (1993).  Supplemental Instruction:  Improving first-year student success in high risk courses.  Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Martin, D. C., Blanc, R. A., & DeBuhr, L. (1983).  Breaking the attrition cycle:  The effects of Supplemental Instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition.  Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80-89.

Maxwell, M. (Ed.). (1994). From access to success. Clearwater, FL: H & H.

McCabe, R. H., & Day, P. R., Jr. (1998). Developmental education: A twenty-first century social and economic imperative. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 176)

McDaniel, N., James, J. B., & Davis, G. (2000).  The student success center at Auburn University.  About Campus, 5(1), 25-28.

Milliron, M. D., & Miles, C. L. (1998). Technology, learning, and community (TLC): Perspectives from Teaching Excellence Award recipients. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 933)

Peled, O. N., & Kim, A. C. (1995).  Supplemental instruction in biology at the college level.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 1, 23-24.

Resnick, J. (1993).  A paired reading and sociology course.  In P. Malinowski (Ed.), Perspectives in Practice in Developmental Education (pp. 62-64).  Canandaigua, NY:  New York College Learning Skills Association.

Romanoff, S. J. (2000).  The learning community laboratory: A context for discovery.  Journal of College Student Development, 41, 245-247. 

Simon, J., Barrett, L., Noble, L., Sweeney, S., & Thom, H. (1993).  Interdisciplinary models of pairing at three institutions.  Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of the National Association for Developmental Education, 17-18.

Stansbury, S. (2001). Accelerated learning groups enhance Supplemental Instruction for at-risk students. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 20-29.

Stratton, C. B. (1998a).  Bridge: Summer retention program for pre-college African American students.  In P. L. Dwinell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Developmental education: Meeting diverse student needs (pp. 45-62).  Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

Thomas, P. V., & Higbee, J. L. (1998). Teaching mathematics on television: Perks and pitfalls.  Academic Exchange Quarterly, 2(2), 29-33.

Visor, J. N., Johnson, J. J., Schollaert, A. M., Good Mojab, C. A., & Davenport, D. (1995).  Supplemental Instruction’s impact on affect: A follow-up and expansion.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 1, 36-37.

Weinstein, C. E., Dierking, D., Husman, J., Roska, L., & Powdrill, L. (1998).  The impact of a course in strategic learning on the long-term retention of college students.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 85-96).  Columbia, SC: National resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Weinstein, C. E., Hanson, G., Powdrill, L., Roska, L., Dierking, D., Husman, J., & McCann, E. (1997).  The design and evaluation of a course in strategic learning.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 3, 53-55.

Weinstein, G. L. (1995).  Mathematics survival:  A linked course.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 1, 38-40.

Zaritsky, J. S. (1998).  Supplemental Instruction: What works, what doesn’t.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 4, 54-55.

III.	Community Partnerships, Collaboration, and Civic Engagement

Anstendig, L., & Richie, E. (1999). Memoir, technology, and research: Public spaces for students and senior citizens in service learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 62-68.

Birge, J. (1999). Sysiphusian exercise: Service learning’s distinction from internship. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(2), 48-52.

Bochenek, M. P. (1999). Classroom communities: Successful learning design or path to chaos? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(3), 16-27.

Borland, K. W., Orazem, V., & Donnelly, D. (1999). Freshman seminar service-learning: For academic and intellectual community integration. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 42-53.

Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A. Institutionalization of service learning in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 273-290.

Canty, A., & Lusby, M. L. (1999). Incorporation of service-learning into a biological science course. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 108-111.

Daigre, E. (2000). Toward a critical service-learning pedagogy: A Freirean approach to civic literacy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 6-14.

Dilley, P. (2000). Not so black and white: Finding diversity where we least expect it. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(2), 64-71.

Edmundson, L. (2000). Thinking critically and serving to learn: New dimensions. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 119-120.

Fukuda, M. H., Kasuya, R. T., & Frankel, R. I. (1999). Community service and student time conflict: Managing community and campus time. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 80-85.

Goodlad, J. I. (1991). School-university partnerships. The Education Digest, 56(8), 58-61.

Gordon, R. (1999). Problem-based service-learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 16-27.
Guarasci, R. (2001). Developing the democratic arts. About Campus,5(6), 9-15.

Henderson, J. (1999). Service-learning in composition. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 103-104.

Hendricksen, D. (2000). Some reflections on service-learning and the heritages of liberal arts higher education. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 30-32.

Howard, A., & Fortune, J. C. (2000). Service-learning as the meeting place for ethics and pedagogy. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 22-47.

Hutchinson, G. (2000). Service-learning: Vygotsky, Dewey, and teaching writing. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 73-79.

Jacobson, D. L. (2001). A new agenda for education partnerships: Stakeholder learning collaboratives. Change, 33(5), 44-53.

Kaminski, R. A. (2000). University students mentor young writers via e-mail. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 99-101.

Konwerski, P., Nashman, H., Ismond, D., & Matsumoto, A. (2000). Faculty success and satisfaction in service-learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 63-72.

Lasky, K., & Panici, D. (2000). An argument for the stand-alone service-learning course. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 33-39.

Longman, D., Atkinson, R., Miholic, V., & Simpson, P. (1999).  Building long-range workplace literacy projects: The ABC reading apprenticeship and task analysis.  In J.L. Higbee & P.L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expanding role of developmental education.  Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

McKenna, M. J. (1999). Academic service learning and collaborative action research: Two roads to educational reform. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 112-114.

Mir, M., & Dowell, M. (1999). Faculty collaboration: Key to a successful academic program. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(2), 54-61.

O’Brien, K. (2000). Teaching research with service-learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 47-52.

Rappoport, A. L. (2000). Inquiry and research as foundations of service learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 15-21.

Robinson, T. (1999). Saving the world (but without doing politics): The strange schizophrenia of the service-learning movement. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 128-133.

Rockwell, P. (1999). Developing communication skills through service-learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 101-102.

Rozee, P. D., & Randall, E. F. (2000). The design and implementation of a strategic plan for community service learning. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 40-46.

Schnaubelt, T., & Watson, J. L. (1999). Connecting service and leadership in the classroom. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 7-15.

Schwartz, S. W. (2001). Leadership for what? About Campus, 6(2), 13-19.

Slimmer, L. (1999). Service-learning in higher education: From vision to action. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 105-107.

Smith, E. D. (2000). The assessment of civic leadership. About Campus, 5(3), 26-28.

Spence, S. D., Autin, G., & Clausen, S. (2000).  Reducing the cost of remediation: A partnership with high schools.  Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 16(2), 5-23.

Thomas, N. L. (2001). Democratic education: A matter of institutional conscience and skills. About Campus, 6(3), 19-24.

Troppe, M. (1999). Service-learning: Curricular options. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 98-100.

Wall, P., Longman, D., Atkinson, R., & Maxcy, D. (1993).  Capitalizing on workplace literacy instruction for industrial construction workers.  The ABC’s of ABC.  Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the National Association for Developmental Education, 19-20.

White, N. L. (1999). Home-school literacy partnerships: A conversation. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(2), 62-72.

Williams, L. B. (2001). Go tell it on the mountain: On building raptor cages and self-confidence. About Campus, 5(6), 27-30.

Winfield, B. (2000). Reflections of a practitioner: Service adds depth to the learning experience for both student and teacher. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 4(4), 4-5.

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Summary of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s “Service Works:” A retrospective evaluation of higher education service programs. Battle Creek, MI: Author.

Wurr, A. J. (1999). Pilot study of the impact of service-learning in college composition on native and non-native speakers. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 54-61.

Zirkle, C. (1999a). Is school-to-careers making the grade? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(4), 115-119.

Zirkle, C. (1999b). Successful school-to-careers practices. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 3(2), 53.

Zlotkowski, E. (2001). Preparing for service-learning: Insight for students from AAHE–Campus Compact Consulting Corps member Michelle Dunlap. AAHE Bulletin, 54(1), 3-7.	

IV.	Shaping Policy and Guiding Practice for the Future

Bader, C. H. (1995).  Developmental studies teachers to retention specialists: Assets and liabilities.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 1,1-2.	

Casazza, M. E. & Silverman, S. L. (1996). Learning assistance and developmental education: A guide for effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Deppe, M. J., & Davenport, F. G. (1996).  Expanding the first-year experience: A report from Hamline University.  About Campus, 1(4), 27-30.

Dwinell, P. L., Higbee, J. L., & Antenen, W. (1993).  Expanding the role of developmental education in research institutions.  Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of National Association for Developmental Education, 4.   

Gamboa, S., Gibson, S., & Thomas, L. (1992).  Meeting diversity’s challenge: The comprehensive academic support program.  Proceedings for the 16th Annual Conference of National Association for Developmental Education, 3-4.	

Higbee, J. L., & Dwinell, P. L. (1998).  Transitions in developmental education at the University of Georgia.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 55-61).  Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, Univesity of South Carolina.

Long, N. A. Z. (1997).  Minority student success through an integrated curriculum.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 3, 28-29.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education (2000). Measuring up 2000: The state by state report card for higher education. San Jose, CA: Author. Available: www.highereducation.org

Sherlin, J. H., Jr. (2001). A change for the twenty-first century: The Kellogg Commission reports. About Campus, 6(3), 28-30.

Spann, M. (2000). Rethinking developmental education: A conversation with John N. Gardner. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(1), 22-24, 26, 28-29.

Spann, M. G. Jr., & McGrimmon, S. (1998). Remedial/developmental education: Past, present, and future. In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 37-47). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Tierney, W. G. (2001). Overcoming obstacles to reform. About Campus, 6(2), 20-24.

Wilkie, C. (1993).  Types and structures of developmental education programming in Pennsylvania.  Proceedings for the 17th Annual Conference of National Association for Developmental Education, 10-12.

Zinn, A., Morris, L. A., McEnery, G., & Poole, C. (1998).  Moving beyond the remedial reading image.  National Association for Developmental Education Selected Conference Papers, 4, 57-59.

V.	Other

Bohr, L. (1996).  College and precollege reading instruction: What are the real differences?  The Learning Assistance Review, 1(1), 14-28.

Boylan, H. (2000). Exploring alternatives to developmental education. Dallas, TX: Starlink. Retrieved January 12, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.starlink.dcccd.edu/packet/packet921.pdf

Boylan, H. R., & Saxon, D. P. (1998).  The origin, scope, and outcomes of developmental education in the 20th century.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp. 5-13). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Casazza, M. E. (1999). Who are we and where did we come from? Journal of Developmental Education, 23(1), 2-4, 6-7.

Chaffee, J. (1992).  Critical thinking skills:  The cornerstone of developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education, 15(3), 2.

Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (Eds.). (2000).  Handbook of college reading and study strategy research.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Goss, D., & Goss, S. (1999). Community college exemplary initiatives, Volume X, 1998-1999. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 427)

Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 290-294.

Hardin, C. J. (1988).  Access to higher education: Who belongs?  Journal of Developmental Education, 12, 2-6.

Hardin, C. J. (1998).  Who belongs in college: A second look.  In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), Developmental education: Preparing successful college students (pp.15-24).  Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

Keller, G. (2001). The new demographics of higher education: Shifts in family life. About Campus, 6(3), 2-5.

Laine, M. E., Laine, C. H., & Bullock, T. L. (1999). Developmental reading education in the United States: One decade later. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 15(2), 5-17.

Levin, H., & Koski, B. (1999, Jan/Feb). From remediation to acceleration: Raising the bar in developmental education. Change, 31(1), 53-56.

Lowery, J. W. (2001). The millenials come to campus. About Campus, 6(3), 6-12.

Lundell, D. B., & Collins, T. (1999) Toward a theory of developmental education: The centrality of “discourse”. In J. L. Higbee & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The expanding role of developmental education (pp. 3-20). Morrow, GA: National Association for Developmental Education.

Lundell, D. B., & Higbee, J. L. (Eds.). (2000). Proceedings of the first intentional meeting on future directions in developmental education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University of Minnesota.

Mullin, R. (2001). The undergraduate revolution: Change the system or give incrementalism another 30 years? Change, 33(5), 54-58.

National Center for Postsecondary Improvement. (2001). A report to stakeholders on the condition and effectiveness of postsecondary education, part two: The public. Change, 33(5), 23-38.

Pusser, B., & Doane, D. J. (2001). Public purpose and private enterprise. Change, 33(5), 18-22.
Silverman, S. L., & Casazza, M. E. (2000). Learning and development: Making connections to enhance teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Simpson, M. L., Hynd, C. R., Nist, S. L., & Burrell, K. I. (1997).  College academic assistance programs and practices.  Educational Psychology Review, 9(1), 39-87.

Williams, B. (1999). Diversity and education for the 21st century. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Yearbook 1999: Preparing our school for the 21st century, 89-114.

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

Multiculturalism in Developmental Education

The fourth annually published independent monograph sponsored by The Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy 
General College, University of Minnesota

We encourage and invite developmental educators across the country to contribute to the fourth independent monograph in a series sponsored by the Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy (CRDEUL). The goal of these monographs is to build strong research and theoretical foundations in the field of developmental education from the perspectives of teachers, researchers, and support services specialists.
The fourth monograph will feature theory, research, and best practices related to the role of multiculturalism in developmental education. Institutions of higher education have historically disenfranchised women; people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender; people with disabilities; and individuals from diverse ethnic, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds. Many instructors and researchers in developmental education agree that a fundamental goal of the field is to ensure the success of these students who have been traditionally underserved by the academy. Little consensus has been reached, however, on how to accomplish this goal. Dr. James Banks (2001), former President of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), writes, “If multicultural education is to become better understood and implemented in ways more consistent with theory, its various dimensions must be more clearly described, conceptualized, and researched” (Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education San Francisco, Jossey-Bass). The aim of this monograph, then, is to provide a forum for presenting theory and research on the complex facets of multiculturalism and their role in practice in the field of developmental education. 

Articles for this monograph might explore and expand the following questions:
•	What is the definition of “multiculturalism” as it relates to developmental education theory, research, policy, and practice? Which theories might contribute to this definition?
•	How does developmental education uniquely contribute to undoing institutional racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of discrimination in higher education?
•	How do developmental educators conceptualize the process of knowledge construction? How do these theories translate into classroom practice? How can developmental educators ensure that all student voices are heard?
•	What are some developmental education students’ stories that might illustrate the importance of inclusion in higher education?
•	What are some innovative examples of effectively addressing multiculturalism in developmental education, both at the classroom and programmatic levels?
•	What student support services are vital to ensure the success of developmental education students, especially those traditionally underserved by the academy?
Submissions (see form on page 57) must be postmarked by February 17, 2003.
Manuscripts will be forwarded to the editorial board for peer review. Authors will then be notified regarding the status of their proposals and receive recommendations and feedback by April 28, 2003. Manuscript revisions will be due by June 16, 2003. The final publication goal for this monograph is fall 2003.

Refer to the guidelines for authors for further information related to manuscript submission. This information is also available online at http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul/ 

For further information, contact:
Dana Britt Lundell, Ph.D.
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy
University of Minnesota-General College
333B Appleby Hall
128 Pleasant Street SE
Minneapolis, MN  55455
Phone: (612) 626-8706
FAX: (612) 625-0709
E-mail: lunde010@umn.edu