The following is a guest blog post by Dr. James Clinger in the Department of Government, Law and International Affairs.
In recent years, American institutions of higher education have increasingly taken on the task of admitting students to college who, by some standards, are not prepared to do college-level work in one or more basic subjects. Such students are often guided to developmental (a.k.a., remedial) courses that are intended to prepare them to do college level work. As pressure to admit, retain, and graduate more and more students is exerted upon colleges and universities, the proportion of the total student body in need of developmental classes is likely to increase.
Many faculty members are not very comfortable with this trend. Some would say that students who are not ready for college work should not be admitted at all. Others would say that students in need of extra coursework to prepare them for college should not be admitted to a four year institution, but should begin at a community college before transferring. Still others would like universities to do more remediation than is presently done. A recently presented conference paper by Paco Martorell and Isaac McFarlin dealing with the effects of remedial education courses in mathematics may inform this debate to some extent. A story about the paper, the paper's abstract, and an earlier draft of the full-text of the paper can be found below.
Education Week Story
Martorell and McFarlin paper
Questions for Murray State Faculty/Staff:
As a matter of policy, should Murray State or other four-year institutions admit large numbers of students in need of remediation?
Would the students be better served if they attended community colleges before transferring to Murray State or some other college or university?
If we don't admit them, will we be meeting the goals that the Council on Postsecondary Education has set for us? If we do admit them, how can we prepare them for college-level work?
Some evidence indicates that remedial classes are not always effective in reaching desired objectives. Are there some forms of delivering remedial education that have been proven effective?
Is there something that we could do differently to make developmental classes enhance learning, as well as improve rates of retention and graduation?
If you have any thoughts on the questions above, please click COMMENTS below. These are important questions that will impact the future of Murray State and the quality of education we can provide.
1 comment:
I am not against remediation. My question is: do we have the resource to do that for a large number of students? The current situation is that most of us are doing what we can in our own courses to make it work. This in some way is unfair to students who come to our classes prepared. If we continue the same path, maybe one day a college degree will weigh the same as a high school diploma.
I understand the competition we face that is pushing us to accept more and more students who are not qualified to be in college otherwise. I still believe in free market. To stay competitive does not mean we need to suffer for quality, in the long run. That has been proved numerous times. We can increase our numbers; but if we don't produce the same quality or higher, how long would this superficial blooming last for us?
Remediation will only work if MSU has the mechanism and extra resources to do so.
Post a Comment