University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

(USC Thesis Other)

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE PERCEPTIONS AND ATTITUDES OF “LOW-ROUTER” STUDENTS IN
DEVELOPMENTAL MATH

by

Dee Uwono Koike

____________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2010

Copyright 2010 Dee Uwono Koike
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, son, family and friends who
have been very patient and supportive of me throughout my educational journey.
This is also dedicated to my parents who provided a solid foundation for me.
Finally, to all of my wonderful teachers and mentors who believed in me.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people in my life that I need to acknowledge who helped me
throughout my educational journey. To my husband Lincoln who has loved and
supported me from the day we met. Your constant encouragement and patience
enabled me to start and finish this process. You believed in me when I did not
believe in myself. You pushed me when I thought I had no strength left to persevere.
I am forever grateful for all of the sacrifices that you made. To my son Cobi, you
were such a great baby. You patiently listened to me while I read numerous articles
to you in order to fulfill my class requirements. Your presence alone encouraged me
to finish in hopes of being a positive role model in your life. To my parents George
and Cheryl who instilled in me great values, which enabled me to be who I am today.
You always believed in me and supported me through all of my challenges in life.
You made many sacrifices in order for me to complete this degree. Thank you for
being such awesome parents. To my brothers Ryan and Greg who helped me
throughout this process, from baby-sitting Cobi to cooking us dinner, I cannot begin
to tell you how much you are both appreciated. To my in-laws and friends, you were
so understanding and patient while I spent hours studying at home instead of
enjoying time with you. Thank you for keeping Lincoln company. To Steph, you
were so patient and put up with me for the past three years. Thank you also for
editing my paper and providing moral support while I was going through this
process. To Dom who has been the best dissertation committee chair. You kept me
sane and uplifted me at just the right moments. Additionally, I always looked
iv
forward to your “Dom-isms” (AKA feedback and comments). To Melora and Larry,
my dissertation committee members, you are such excellent educators and role
models. I learned so much about the educational system through your knowledge
and expertise. You guided me through each step of the way. To Lui and the rest of
the Windward CC gang, thank you so much for your help and cooperation. I would
have never been able to interview the students for my study without your help. To
Team Dom, I could not have done this without you. You provided me with much
encouragement and motivation, at all hours, and supported me throughout this entire
journey. I am so grateful to have met each and every one of you. To the rest of the
USC cohort, you are such an awesome group. I will forever remember our potlucks,
friendship and camaraderie. I could not have made it through all of the classes,
papers, group projects and group work without each and every one of you. Finally,
to all of the students who participated in my study, this is your voice and I hope that
by telling your story, we can help others who are faced with similar challenges.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter I: The Problem of Education in the United States 1
Figure 1: Education Pipeline, 2006 10
Chapter II: Review of the Literature 16
Chapter III: Methodology 43
Chapter IV: Findings 54
Chapter V: Discussion, Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations 82
References 108
Appendices 123
Appendix A: Sample Procedures for Pre-Interview 123
Appendix B: Semi-Structured Interview Questions 125
Appendix C: Interview Questions from Pedalty (2001) and 128
Dominick et al. (2007)
Appendix D: E-Mail Invitation Sent by the Vice Chancellor 130
for Students to Participate in a Study
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Breakdown of Math Compass Test Scores 48
Table 2: Demographics 59
vii
ABSTRACT
Although much national effort has been made to align the K-12 and higher
education systems, the educational pipeline is still leaky at every stage. Furthermore,
one of the on-going issues in the educational system is the lack of readiness of high
school graduates for post-secondary education, especially for low income and
minority students. As a result, there is a staggering number of students who enter
college and are placed into non-credit-bearing, remedial courses. One of the goals
set by the Department of Education (DOE) is to decrease the number of Hawai`i high
school graduates enrolled in remedial education.
This qualitative study adds to the body of literature by providing an increased
understanding of “low-router” students‟ choice to enroll in remedial/developmental
math versus college math at a community college by examining their perceptions and
attitudes. Consequently, five distinctive themes emerged from this study. They
were: 1) student characteristics, 2) path, 3) factors that explain “low-router” students‟
perceptions and attitudes, 4) “low-router” students‟ understanding of their situation
and 5) constituents that supported or hindered “low-router” students‟ choice of math
placement. As a result, this study provided several recommendations for high school
and college administrators to improve current practices in order to support and
encourage students to prepare for college, transition into college and decrease the
number of high school graduates enrolled in remedial education.

1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM OF EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES
Introduction
In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your
knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to
opportunity – it is a pre-requisite. Right now, three-quarters of the
fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school
diploma...just over half of our citizens have that level of education.
We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any
industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college
never finish. This is a prescription for economic decline, because we
know that countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us
tomorrow.
President Barack Obama
Address to the Joint Session of Congress, February 2009

Technological advances, globalization, outsourcing and demographic trends
will be shaping the future in the next 10-15 years and have changed employment
opportunities for Americans over the last three decades. Specifically, technological
advances are expected to speed up and, therefore, change the demands of business
and workforce (Karoly and Panis, 2004). Jobs are being outsourced and automated,
which provides global labor market opportunities for people across the world. This
not only increases the demand for higher skilled workers but also puts Americans in
a more competitive situation for work (Achieve, 2008; Carnevale and Desrochers,
2002; Freidman, 2005; Karoly and Panis, 2004).

2
Educational Attainment
The competitiveness of the workforce is driving a stronger need for
Americans to increase their education and skill level. Specifically, six out of ten jobs
are held by those with at least some college experience (Carnevale and Desrochers,
2002). Carnevale (2008) found that in 1973, 38% of office workers had some post-
secondary education versus today, where 69% have some post-secondary education.
Although a need for some college education contributes to our economic growth, the
gap between those who have some college education and those who do not have any
college education is increasing; thus, the income divide between both groups is
widening (Carnevale and Desrochers, 2002; Achieve, 2008). Furthermore,
Carnevale and Desrochers (2002) estimate that by 2010, two-thirds of all U.S. jobs
and 70% of new jobs will require some post-secondary education. They also predict
that a shortage of workers with some college-level skills could increase to more than
12 million by 2020.
Post-secondary educational attainment in the United States is quickly
declining and falling behind other countries. In 1995, America was at the top and
graduated the most students from post-secondary institutions (Achieve, 2008). The
numbers quickly fell where in 2006, the United States dropped to 14 out of 27
industrialized Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
countries and had the second highest drop-out rate (OECD, 2008).
Similarly, the United States is falling behind other countries in math and
science. In 2006, through an international assessment, Achieve (2008) found that
3
15-year-old students ranked 25
th
in math and 21
st
in science. Furthermore, Ginsburg,
Cooke, Leinwand, Noell and Pollack (2005) compared math performance data from
the 12 industrialized countries using three different international surveys in 2003: the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which assessed 4
th
graders
(TIMSS-4), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, which assessed
8
th
graders (TIMSS-8) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),
which assessed the mathematics and science skills of 15-year-old students.
Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell and Pollack (2005) found that according to the
TIMSS-4 assessment, the United States ranked 8
th
out of 12 international countries.
Furthermore, the United States did worse on the TIMSS-8 and PISA assessments,
where it ranked 9
th
out of 12 on both.
At the state level, according to the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), Hawai`i is one of the lowest ranking states in math where it
ranked 47 out of 50 in the United States in 2007 (Office of the Vice President for
Academic Planning and Policy, 2008). Moreover, Hawai`i college-bound students
perform below their peers. According to the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), 33% of the 4
th
graders performed at or above proficiency level in
Hawai‟i compared to 38% nationally. Furthermore, 25% of the 8
th
graders in
Hawai`i performed at or above the proficiency level compared to 31% nationally
(Achieve, 2008b).

4
Benefits of Education Attainment
The benefit of obtaining a post-secondary education is significant. Karoly
and Panis (2004) found that technological advances have increased the premium
wages earned where in 1973, those with a college degree earned 46% more than
those with a high school degree. Subsequently, twenty-eight years later or in 2001,
those with a college degree earned 76% more than those with a high school degree,
which is a difference of 30%. Furthermore, higher levels of educational attainment
are associated with higher earnings and employment growth (Gottlieb and Fogarty,
2003). For example, the average earnings in 2002 of those who obtained a high
school diploma was $27,280 compared to those who obtained some college or
Associate‟s degree at $31,046, versus those who obtained a bachelor‟s degree at
$51,194 and an advanced degree at $72,824. In Hawai„i, over half of “Hawai`i‟s Hot
50 Demand Occupations” require post-secondary education. Specifically, a person
with no post-secondary education can earn an average salary ranging from $18,310
to $30,420, versus someone with some post-secondary education or an Associate‟s
degree earning an average salary ranging from $23,890 to $74,220, versus a person
who has obtained a Bachelor‟s degree or higher, earning an average salary ranging
from $45,420 to $102,020 (Hawai„i Workforce Informer, 2007). Finally, there is a
significant difference in an individual‟s earning power over a lifetime where
someone with a high school diploma will earn $1.4 million, someone with an
Associate‟s degree will earn $1.8 million and someone with a Bachelor's degree will
earn $2.5 million (Achieve, 2008c).
5
In addition to higher wages, educational attainment has a strong correlation
with several public and private benefits. Individuals with some post-secondary
education may benefit from job stability, improved health and are more likely to
receive employer-provided health insurance and pension benefits. Furthermore,
these individuals are more inclined to vote and have increased social and cultural
capital (Brewer, Hentschke and Eide, 2008; Cohn and Geske, 1990; Wolfe and
Zuvekas, 1997). Other benefits of educational attainment, which are more short-
term, include learning experience, participation in cultural and social events and an
increase in social status. Additional long-term benefits include improved civic
participation, increases in tax revenues, lower probability of unemployment and
reductions in the provision of social services (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2008;
Ewell, Jones and Kelly, 2003; Perna, 2005).

College Going Pipeline Problem
Over the past decade, policy makers have increased their investment in the K-
12 and higher education systems, acknowledging that individual educational
attainment will increase the state‟s economic development and produce educated
citizens (Ewell, Jones and Kelly, 2003). Although the resources may be available,
states have created barriers between the K-12 and higher education systems
(Venezia, Kirst and Antonio, 2003). Through Stanford University‟s Bridge Project,
Venezia et. al. (2003) found that in the K-12 system, forty-nine states created content
standards in most academic subjects and statewide assessments. Similarly, they
6
found that the higher education system has been impacted by some policy changes,
such as Proposition 209, which have changed the way that institutions admit
students. Although the two systems deal with similar issues, Venezia et. al. (2003)
found that there is little coordination between the K-12 and higher education
systems. In order to have a more concerted effort to align both systems, the concept
of the educational pipeline, which is often called the “P-16” or “K-16” system, was
established. The main theory behind this educational pipeline reform is to align
policies that will enable all students to meet higher standards and move easily from
one level to the next and essentially, make it all one system (Kirst and Bracco, 2004;
Venezia and Rainwater, 2007). Ewell, Jones and Kelly (2003) conceptualized the
educational pipeline into five different stages: 1) Graduation from high school; 2)
entry into post-secondary education; 3) persistence in post-secondary education; 4)
completing post-secondary education; and 5) entering the workforce (p. 2).
Although much national effort has been made to align both systems, the educational
pipeline is still leaky at every stage.
The leaky educational pipeline begins in high school where there has been an
increase in the amount of students who do not graduate by the time they are nineteen
(Ewell, Jones and Kelly, 2003). Consequently, more attention has been focused on
studying ninth graders and their progression through high school. In 2006, the
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2009) published an
analysis of one hundred ninth graders and their progression from high school to
college. They found that nationally, 69 out of 100 ninth graders graduate from high
7
school on time (See Figure 1). Furthermore, using data from the 2001 U.S.
Department of Education, Greene and Forster (2003) found that only 70% of all
students graduated from high school. The Educational Testing Service (2007)
indicated that there has been a downward trend since 1969 where the high school
graduation rate peaked at 77% and fell 7% over 26 years. This downward trend
negatively impacts the college going rate, especially for disadvantaged minorities
where only 50% graduated from high school, indicating that college opportunities for
low-income students remain low.
Lack of readiness of high school graduates for post-secondary education has
been another on-going issue, especially for low-income and minority students (Kirst
and Bracco, 2004; Martinez and Klopott, 2005). In an analysis of the 1992 National
Center for Education Statistics data, only 28.3% of low-income students enrolled in a
college preparatory track compared to 65.1% of high-income students who enrolled
in a college preparatory track. In regards to figures on minority students, only 5% of
African American and 12% of Latino high school graduates were prepared for their
first credit-bearing Biology course in college. Furthermore, only 11% of African
American and 24% of Latino high school graduates were prepared for their first
credit-bearing Algebra course in college. Finally, only 38% of African American
and 48% of Latino high school graduates were prepared for their first credit-bearing
English course in college (ACT, 2004). Lack of preparation at the high school level
also contributes to a staggering number of students who enter college and are placed
into non-credit-bearing, remedial courses. Overall, 46% of those who enter any type
8
of college and 60% of students who enter community colleges are required to take a
remedial course in one or more subjects (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).
Another issue of the educational pipeline is the low rate of persistence once
students enter the post-secondary education system. Overall, only a quarter of the
students who enter four-year post-secondary institutions and nearly half of those who
enter two-year colleges do not return for their second year (Education Trust, 2003).
Similarly, in 2006, the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems
(2009) assessed the trends of 100 ninth grade students and found that nationally 28
out of 100 students continue their enrollment through their sophomore year in
college (See Figure 1).
Another challenge of the educational pipeline is the low rates of completion
at the post-secondary level. Although the data show that 70% of high school
graduates receive post-secondary education, the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems (2009) found that only 20 out of 100 students
graduated with their Bachelor‟s degree within six years of entrance (see Figure 1).
Similarly, the data show that in the mid-1970‟s, 40% of the students from the top
income quartile earned a Bachelor‟s degree compared to 6% of the students from the
bottom quartile. In 2003, the gap widened where 70% of students from the top
income quartile earned a Bachelor‟s degree compared to 9% of the students from the
bottom quartile (Haycock, 2006). Furthermore, when looking at the data on low-
income and first generation students, the former were three times more likely to
leave a public, four-year post-secondary institution and five time more likely to leave
9
a private, not-for-profit four-year institution after the first year compared to their
more advantaged peers (Engle and Tinto, 2008).
While educational attainment benefits society and the individual, the United
States clearly lags behind in the global economy. The educational pipeline clearly
funnels from high school to post-secondary education where there is a significant
decrease in students at each transitional point. Fewer students are graduating from
high school, accessing post-secondary education, and persisting and graduating from
college. Although many states are working hard at this initiative, no state has
perfected a well-developed, integrated system that focuses on student success.
Researchers have asserted that the main reason for the gap is the lack of
communication and connection between the K-12 and higher education systems
(Kirst and Bracco, 2004).
10

86
60
42
30
69
42
28
20
68
41
24
12
0
20
40
60
80
100
Graduate from High
School
Immediately Enter College Still Enrolled in Sophomore
Year
Graduate Within 150% of
Time
Of 100 Ninth Graders
Best Performing State
National
Hawaii

Figure 1: Education Pipeline, 2006. Source: The National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education (NCHEMS), 2009

Statement of the Problem
Overall, Hawai`i faces the same challenges at every point in the educational
pipeline and clearly lags behind the best performing states (see Figure 1). In 2006,
the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (2009) published an
analysis of one hundred ninth graders and their progression from high school to
college. The data shows that Hawai`i falls below the national average where 68 out
of 100 ninth graders graduate from high school on time, 41 immediately enter a post-
secondary institution, 24 continue their enrollment through their sophomore year in
11
college, and 12 graduate within six years (National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, 2009). The gap between Hawai`i and the United States has
been increasing as students persist to their sophomore year in college and move
towards graduation. If this trend continues, there will be less educated citizens in the
workforce.
Specifically, the number of first-time, Hawai`i public high school graduates
enrolled in the University of Hawai`i Community College system who are under-
prepared is high by national standards. Overall, 50.2% of entering University of
Hawai`i Community College students are placed in remedial or developmental math
courses and 45.5% were enrolled in remedial/developmental English (UHRIO,
2008). This is higher than the national average where 41% of the students in post-
secondary education enroll in remedial coursework (Adelman, 2004). This clearly
shows that Hawai`i students are under-prepared and lack the requisite academic
skills to enroll in college level courses. Although a body of literature addresses the
lack of readiness of high school graduates for post-secondary education, the
literature on the perceptions and attitudes of students in remedial/developmental
education, particularly remedial/developmental math, is sparse.
In order to close the alignment gap and increase educational attainment
between high school and post-secondary education, faculty and administrators must
gain a better understanding of why students are not prepared for college. To gain a
better understanding of this issue, there are few studies that cover students‟
perceptions of those enrolled in remedial/developmental education. These studies
12
mentioned that students‟ readiness for college may be impacted by several factors to
include lack of information, motivational issues, support or lack of support from
family, peers, teachers and counselors and policies at the high school and college
level (Beach, Lundell and Jung, 2002; Cole, Goetz and Wilson, 2000; and Valeri-
Gold, Callahan, Deming, Mangram and Errico, 1997). Although few studies on the
perceptions of those students enrolled in remedial/developmental education exists,
there are no studies that examine the perceptions of those students who, by college
standards, are prepared for college level courses but place themselves into remedial
education. Specifically, these students are labeled “low-router” students (Maxwell,
Hagedorn, Cypers, Lester and Moon, 2004).
The fact that students choose to place themselves into remedial/
developmental education is troubling for many reasons. They extend their time-to-
degree by taking a non-credit-bearing course and consume more personal resources,
as they have to pay for the additional remedial/developmental course, which may
contribute to early drop-out.

The Purpose of the Study
This study examined the perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in
developmental math at a community college. Specifically, this study sought to
understand the characteristics of “low-router” students, such as demographics,
ethnicity, high school course taking patterns, high school GPA and SAT scores.
Additionally, this study examined the internal and external factors that contributed to
13
their math placement choice. The internal factors included motivation, attitude and
confidence and external factors included high school and college policies and
support from peers, family, counselors and teachers. Currently, there are no studies
that explain this phenomenon where students have the opportunity to take college
math but choose to take remedial/developmental math.
The outcome of this study will enable faculty and administrators at the high
school and community college levels to have a better understanding of the
characteristics and factors that contribute to “low-router” students‟ choice of math
placement in the community college in order to reshape their practices.

Research Questions
This study addressed the following questions:
1. Why did these students choose to take developmental math versus college
math?
2. What are the perceptions and attitudes of "low-router" students?
3. How do students understand their situation, and what institutional
practices influence their perceptions?

Significance of the Study
In 2008, the University of Hawai`i (UH) system and Hawai`i Department of
Education (DOE) both unveiled their strategic plans, which recognize the need to
increase educational capital in the state of Hawai`i. The University of Hawai`i‟s
14
strategic plan delineates specific goals set through 2010 (University of Hawai„i,
2008). One of the goals specifically outlines the importance of preparing students to
become educated and highly skilled in the global economy. Furthermore, UH set a
goal to increase the educational capital by increasing the number of students who
possess a college degree to 55% by the year 2025. Additionally, the Department of
Education released the latest version of their strategic plan with goals set through
June 30, 2011. They set a goal to decrease the number of Hawai`i high school
graduates enrolled in remedial education (Hawai„i Department of Education, 2008).
In alignment with these goals, this study adds insight and provides
information to both high schools and community colleges as to the reasons behind
“low-router” students‟ choice of math placement in college. Information from these
students will help faculty, teachers and administrators examine and make
improvements to their current practices to better prepare students for college.

Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations to this study. First, this study will focus on the
point in the educational pipeline of entry into post-secondary education. Second, the
subjects will be narrowed down to “low-router” students who were enrolled in
developmental math. Third, the University of Hawai`i system does not have
standardized policies and procedures for remedial/developmental education;
therefore, the study is unique to this particular institution and may not be transferable
to the other community colleges. Finally, this study will be conducted over a period
15
of two months and the participants will be students who have completed the remedial
Math 24 or Math 25 course during the Fall 2007, Spring 2008, Fall 2008, Spring
2009 or Fall 2009 semesters.

Delimitations of the Study
This study is limited to a single, small community college in Hawai`i. For
this reason, the results are not generalizable.

Definition of Terms
Cooling out - the process by which colleges influence students to lower their
expectations for academic success (Clark, 1960; Karabel, 1977).
Developmental Education - a holistic approach to college preparedness that
combines academic remediation with learning skill training that takes the student‟s
life circumstances into account (Moss and Yeaton, 2006)
“Low-router” students - those who placed into college math based on their
test scores but entered into a remedial math course (Maxwell, W., Hagedorn, L. S.,
Cypers, S., Lester, J. and Moon, H., 2004).
Remedial Education - programs or courses through which students are given
the opportunity to learn or re-learn basic academic skills needed for college level
course work (Casazza, 1999). Usually these credits do not count toward completion
of an academic course of study.
16
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
A great deal has been written about remedial and developmental education.
In order to provide a foundation for this study, three major areas were selected. They
are (a) students‟ academic preparation from high school; (b) culture and support that
students receive; and (c) access to information. Imbedded into each section will be
students‟ perceptions and attitudes.
A review of literature covers the overarching problem and most recent
statistics of under-prepared students at state and national levels, followed by the
breadth and depth of remedial/developmental education and the importance of
remedial/developmental math. This section is designed to provide evidence of the
disproportionate number of under-prepared minority and low SES students who are
required to enroll in remedial/developmental math at community colleges.
Subsequently, review of the literature also expands on the critical roles that the
institution, family, teachers and peers play in under-prepared students‟ ability to
prepare for and succeed in college. Finally, the literature review expands on the
disconnect between secondary and post-secondary education, specifically on the gap
in information that students receive in regards to preparing and transitioning into
college.
17
Academic Preparation
Under-prepared College Students
Many students continue to enter college under-prepared (McCabe, 2000;
Roberts, 1986; Greene and Foster, 2003). Overall, more students at two-year
colleges enroll in remedial work than at four-year colleges (Adelman, 2006; Attewell
et. al., 2006). A study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES) found that more than 42% of students at two-year institutions are under-
prepared (Warburton, Bugarin and Nunez, 2001) and three-fifths of students who
enroll in public two-year institutions require at least one remedial/developmental
course work (Adelman, 2005; Horn and Berger, 2004; U.S. Department of
Education, 2004). Hawai`i‟s enrollment in remedial or developmental education
exceeds the national average where in Fall 2003, 46% of all students enrolled in the
community colleges were deemed under-prepared (WPGC, 2007). Thus, the odds of
a student dropping out of college increases as the number of remedial/developmental
courses required of them increases (Burly, Cejda and Butner, 2001).
Studies have shown that the rigor of the classes taken in high school has an
impact on the likelihood that a student will complete and obtain a Bachelor‟s degree
(Adelman, 1999). Additionally, the rigor of students‟ high school curriculum is
related to the number of remedial courses required of them in post-secondary
education. In a study by Burly, Cejda and Butner (2001), it was found that as the
rigor of students‟ high school curriculum increased, the proportion of those who took
one or more remedial courses decreased. Consequently, a report from the Education
18
Trust (1999) found that low-income and minority students are less likely to enroll in
rigorous or college preparatory courses in high school, which may increase the
likelihood that they will be required to take one or more remedial courses during
college.

Breadth and Depth of Remedial Education
The breadth, or the number of remedial courses required, and depth, or the
“degree of deficiency in a given area” (Bahr, 2007, p. 6), that a student needs in
college have been found to negatively affect a student‟s chances of successfully
remediating (Bahr, 2007; Easterling, Patten and Krile, 1998; McCabe, 2000;
Weismann, Silk and Bulakowski, 1997). Taking many remedial courses lowers the
chances of graduation and increases the amount of time it takes to obtain a degree
(Attewell et. al., 2006). In fact, as the amount of remedial/developmental courses
that are required of students increases, the odds of them dropping out of college
increases as well (Burley, Butner and Cejda, 2001). For example, McCabe (2000)
found that only 20% of students who required remedial assistance in all three areas
(math, reading and writing) successfully remediated in college. Furthermore,
Easterling et. al. (1998) studied three categories of students who they labeled as
“high risk” or those who lacked basic grammar and arithmetic skills at the ninth
grade level, “medium risk” or those who lacked basic reading, grammar and
arithmetic skills at the 12
th
grade level, and “low risk” or those who required
minimal remediation in writing, basic algebra or geometry. They found that only
19
15% of students who needed high levels of remediation in math successfully
completed a college-level course, compared to 24% of students who required
medium levels of remediation and 34% who required low levels of remediation.
Similarly, only 21% of students who needed high levels of remediation in English
successfully completed a college-level course, compared to 50% of students who
required medium level remediation and 55% who required low levels of remediation.
Conversely, 26% of all students enrolled in remedial/developmental education in the
Hawai`i Community College system were doubly deficient, meaning that they were
enrolled in both remedial/developmental math and English. After four semesters, the
Fall 2003 cohort persisted at a rate of 27% and the Spring 2004 cohort persisted at a
rate of 31%, which was higher than the students who were enrolled in only English
or math remedial courses (WPGC, 2007).

Importance of Remedial/Developmental Math
The single best predictor of academic success for students in college is
completion of a high level of math in high school (Adelman, 1999 and 2006).
Although this is an important factor, students seem to be more under-prepared in
mathematics than any other subject. An analysis of the NELS:88 data suggests that
the most common remedial subject is mathematics, where 28% of the students were
enrolled in such a course, followed by 9% in remedial reading, 18% in remedial
writing and comprehensive language arts and 9% in some other remedial course
(Attewell et. al., 2006). Another study conducted by Parsad, Lewis and Greene
20
(2003) suggests that out of the 28% of first-time college freshmen who enrolled in
remedial coursework, 22% of those students enrolled in remedial math compared to
14% that enrolled in remedial writing and 11% that enrolled in remedial reading
courses.
Comparatively, the number of first-time, Hawai`i public high school
graduates enrolled in the Community College system in Hawai`i is high by national
standards. In 2007, 45.5% were enrolled in remedial or developmental English
courses and 50.2% were enrolled in remedial or developmental math. Thus, students
from Hawai`i public high schools seem to be more under-prepared than students
from the continental United States.
It was also found that more students who enrolled in only remedial math
successfully completed the course compared to enrollment in any other remedial
course(s). For example, Weissman, Silk and Bulakowski (1997) tracked the
academic performance of remedial students at a comprehensive community college
in Chicago over a period of two years. They found that students enrolled in only
remedial math had the highest remediation rate of 69%, followed by students
enrolled in the language remedial class at the rate of only 66%. Those who were
enrolled in math and writing remedial courses successfully remediate at 53% versus
33% of those enrolled in remedial math, reading and writing.
Although the data show that enrollment in developmental/remedial math is
higher than enrollment in developmental/remedial reading or writing, several studies
offered evidence of positive outcomes of such programs. For example, Bahr (2008)
21
found that students enrolled in remedial math successfully completed the course and
exhibited long-term academic outcomes, which are comparable to those students
who did not require remedial assistance. Specifically, Lesik (2007) found that
participation in developmental math has a positive impact on student retention. It
was found that 88.7% of the students in developmental math were still enrolled after
the first year compared to 62.7% of the students who did not participate in the
developmental program. Bettinger and Long (2004) found similar results where
remedial math students who successfully completed the math course are only slightly
less likely to complete a four-year degree than are college-prepared students.
Therefore, although students in math remediation take longer to graduate, they are
more likely to persist in college.

Minority and Low SES Students in Remedial/Developmental Education
There is a disproportionate number of minorities who are unprepared for the
academic rigor of college and notably have the highest representation in post-
secondary remedial education (Attewell et. al., 2006). Furthermore, the
socioeconomically disadvantaged and those from academically deprived schools or
school districts often come to college under-prepared and are typically advised to
enroll in remedial education courses (Kreysa, 2006). Remediation provides access to
higher education, particularly for under-privileged populations (McCabe, 2000).
In a study conducted across 23 colleges and universities in 16 states, of the
students enrolled in remedial mathematics, 57.4% were minorities, (African
22
Americans and Hispanics) and 49.9% were White (Hagedorn, Siadet, Fogel, Nora
and Pascarella, 1999). Furthermore, African Americans and Latinos were most
represented in remedial course-taking (Adelman, 2004), but African American
students are significantly more likely than non-Hispanic White students to enroll in
remedial courses (Attewell, Lavin, Domina and Levey, 2006). In a recent large
scale, multi-institutional study, which focused specifically on the racial disparities of
students enrolled in remediation math courses over a six year period, Bahr (2009)
found that White students are 3.1 times more likely to successfully remediate in math
than Black students and 1.6 times more likely to successfully remediate than
Hispanic students. In another study, Bailey, Jeong and Cho, (2008) found that
overall, African American students are less likely to progress through their full-time
remedial sequence. Finally, African American and Hispanic students who take
remedial courses in community college are far less likely than their peers to transfer
to a four-year college or complete their degree (Bailey, Jenkins and Leinbach, 2005).
The number of minority students enrolled in remedial/developmental
education in Hawai`i mirrors that of other institutions on the continent. In Fall 2003,
the White Paper Group Committee found that minority students were most
represented in remedial/developmental courses (2007). Furthermore, Native
Hawaiian students were the largest population enrolled in remedial/developmental
courses in Fall 2003 with an average of 21%. Additionally, in Fall 2004, Native
Hawaiian and Filipino students were the highest population enrolled, where each
group accounted for an average of 20% of the total remedial/developmental
23
population. Furthermore, the data from Fall 2003 showed that the most prevalent
age group enrolled in remedial or developmental course work were 18 or 19-year-old
students at 47% (WPGC, 2007).
In the same vein, students of low socio-economic status are also over-
represented in such courses. By comparing the High School and Beyond
Longitudinal Study of 1980 (HS&B/So:80-92) and the National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000), Adelman (2004) found that in both
studies, students from the lowest SES quintile were more likely to be assigned to
remedial work than students from the other quintiles. He also found that this was
more evident in the recent study or NELS:88 than the former study or HS&B/SO: 80.
Specifically, another study suggests that students in remedial math were more likely
to come from lower income families (Hagedorn, Siadet, Fogel, Nora and Pascarella,
1999). Thus, as Bahr (2007b) states, “the purpose of remedial education is to restore
opportunity to those who otherwise may be relegated to meager wages, poor working
conditions and other consequences of socioeconomic marginalization” (p. 5).
Although national statistics show that a large number of students who enter
college are under-prepared, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
found that 22% of colleges do not offer remedial coursework and approximately
27% indicate that they have an institutional policy prohibiting the offering of
remedial courses (NCES, 1996). Additionally, approximately two-thirds of all
campuses restrict enrollment to some classes until the remediation sequence is
complete (NCES, 1996). These policies could dissuade under-prepared students
24
from enrolling in post-secondary institutions and may hinder minority students,
especially the Native Hawaiian and Filipino populations in Hawai`i, from
transferring to a four-year college or completing their degree.

Culture and Support
Remedial/Developmental Students‟ Perceptions
Few studies have examined the perceptions and experiences of students in
remedial/developmental education. Understanding how students perceive college
and particularly, how they view remedial/developmental education prior to their
enrollment in post-secondary education is important. This will help them overcome
some of the barriers and prepare them for college, especially if they perceive
remedial/developmental education as a means of access to higher education.
Furthermore, it is also important to understand how students feel while enrolled in
remedial/developmental education in order to retain them and help them transfer to a
four-year institution or graduate from a post-secondary institution. Finally, several
qualitative studies revealed that students‟ families, teachers and peers have both
positive and negative effects on them. The following expands on the students‟
overall perceptions of remedial/developmental education, followed by their
perceptions about their family, teachers and peers.
A study by Higbee (2007) explored students‟ perspectives on college
readiness. An open-ended questionnaire was administered to forty-one students.
Out of the forty-one students, only four or 10% affirmed that graduating from high
25
school means that they are ready for college. Additionally, seventeen students or
41% indicated that “high school does not provide adequate preparation for college”
(p. 6). Although these students voiced such concerns, fourteen respondents‟ (34%)
advice to high school freshmen and sophomores is to get good grades and maintain a
high grade point average (GPA). Additionally, 13 students (32%) mentioned the
need to take difficult and challenging courses such as honors, writing-intensive and
advanced placement (AP) courses as early as possible. Finally, several students
advised high school freshmen and sophomores to study hard, develop good study
skills and research colleges early. From these students‟ perspectives, there seems to
be a disconnect between their perceptions on the institutional practices or the college
preparation received from high school and the internal factors or the knowledge of
what is needed to prepare for college. These students voiced that they know what is
needed in order to prepare for college yet they do not feel that their high school
prepared them for college.
A study by Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico (1997) assessed the
perceptions of 125 developmental studies students in their initial quarters at a
commuter, urban, southeastern university. The overall culture of these students was
that most of them had a negative perception of the developmental course at their
institution and felt that it interfered with their studies. Moreover, 25 students voiced
their concerns and wanted to exit the developmental class right away. A number of
students “viewed the class as a waste of time and an embarrassment” (p. 4). Other
students voiced that they felt “trapped in developmental courses” (p. 5).
26
Additionally, approximately half of the students in the study expressed
dissatisfaction in being placed in the developmental course and specifically stated
that they felt “discouraged by developmental studies classes and continued to feel
stupid because of their placement in the courses” (p. 6). In another study conducted
by Pedalty (2001), 25 out of 38 students dealt with issues of stigma and majority of
students in developmental education believed that their peers in other programs and
people in the wider community viewed the students and the program negatively.
Additionally, at the institution studied (“General College” [GC]), students voiced a
general theme of stigma or disappointment regarding their admission to the
university through the developmental program and voiced that they felt marginalized
as a member of such a program (Lundell, Beach and Jung, 2007). Specifically, some
of the descriptions used to describe the program were “thirteenth grade, Ghetto
College, college for athletes, and school for dummies” (p. 80). Furthermore, in a
pilot study conducted by Higbee and Siaka (2005), students voiced their perception
of stigma. For example, a student said, “Students in GC usually don‟t want to be
there, because they feel the need that they are part of a lower class at the university
and this sometimes affects their decision making and knowledge of everything.”
Another student said, “GC is good academically, although many students get
discouraged like myself who come to GC, by seeing you are part of the group that
everyone is looking down on” (p. 122).
Contrary to the negative perceptions voiced by students, some students
perceived their experiences to be positive and mentioned various ways that
27
remedial/developmental education has helped them. For example, students in
Lundell, Beach and Jung‟s (2007) study voiced that General College (GC) gave them
a second chance and opportunity. Students also expressed many positive comments
about the smaller class size, teachers, advisers and student services. Furthermore,
students in their second year changed their perception and articulated a more positive
view of GC, stating that they felt the program prepared them to transfer to another
college. Other students at General College voiced that they appreciated the academic
preparation provided by General College (Higbee and Siaka, 2005). Specifically,
one student wrote, “I believe that GC is a good starting foundation for many
students. Ever since I‟ve been here the knowledge that I‟ve obtained has been more
than I ever expected. Not only are the classes taught differently but in ways where it
can somehow relate” (p. 122). Additionally, in a qualitative study by Duranczyk and
Higbee (2006) who studied fifty-four students at a public university in the mid-west,
out of 13 participants, 4 students voluntarily took the developmental math course
because they felt inadequately prepared or overwhelmed. They also voiced that they
took developmental math to “overcome mathematical anxieties…and felt that
developmental math empowered them and opened other doors for they no longer felt
that their options were limited” (p. 28).
Although students continue to have negative perceptions about
remedial/developmental education, the same students voiced positive experiences
and explained how remedial/developmental education has helped them to learn and
grow in a safe environment. In fact, one student in General College defended the
28
program and stated, “it provides students who may not have done well in high school
a second chance to demonstrate their abilities” (Lundell, Beach and Jung, 2007, p.
79). While students have voiced their support of remedial/developmental education,
based on their negative perceptions, it seems that much work is needed to prepare
them for college and combat the stigma that they continue to feel about this program.

Family
Support from family, specifically parents, plays an integral role in the
students‟ transitional experience. Students felt that parents had an impact on their
college aspirations and academic success while enrolled in college. In a multi-
institutional study, students said, “Parents…pushed local colleges or stated
universities that were less selective, less competitive, less expensive, and closer to
home” (Merchant, 1996, p. 140). Merchant (1996) also found that the parents felt
they were responsible for helping their child fill out admission application forms and
informing them about college course requirements.
The influence of family is an important aspect of students‟ academic success
and decision to persist. In a qualitative study, students stated that they persisted in
their remedial coursework because family members had educational expectations of
them and they placed pressure on them to live up to the examples set by other
members of the family. They also voiced that they perceived family support in
general is a major contributing factor that influences their academic success
(Carranza, 2007). In another qualitative study, students disclosed that the influence
29
of family, particularly mothers, fostered academic development by being
disciplinarians, instructors and motivators (Myers, 1999). Finally, students voiced
that their decision to either continue or drop out of school was influenced by their
family. They also acknowledged the importance of family support (Dominick,
Stevens and Smith, 2007). Finally, Caniglia and Duranczyk‟s (1999) study found
that two-thirds of developmental students said that family members' comments
affected their beliefs, attitudes and emotions towards mathematics.

Teachers
Students‟ positive interactions with faculty can have a profound effect on
several outcomes. In numerous studies, students voiced that support from their
teachers was important and had a positive effect on their college decisions (Valeri-
Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico, 1997; Caniglia and Duranczyk, 1999; Higbee
and Siaka, 2005). Furthermore, several studies indicated that students who
interacted with their teachers had a positive effect on retention and that they
developed a support network with them (Tinto, Russo and Stephanie, 1994; Astin,
1993). Conversely, negative perceptions of under-prepared students from faculty
members can have an adverse effect on student outcomes as well.
In a qualitative study conducted by Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and
Errico (1997), they found that teachers had a positive effect on students‟ learning.
Specifically, several students enrolled in the developmental courses “praised the
faculty mentoring they received and reported that they were learning” and some of
30
the students voiced that the faculty “seemed more interested in teaching than they
expected” (p. 5). Subsequently, Caniglia and Duranczyk (1999) gathered narratives
from ninety-six students who were enrolled in developmental math. These students
praised teachers who helped them to build their confidence by spending time with
them on a personal level. Furthermore, students also voiced that they appreciated
instructors who showed a lot of enthusiasm, provided clear and multiple explanations
and who cared and spent much time with the students (Caniglia and Duranczyk,
1999). Additionally, 71% of the General College (GC) students in a pilot study
conducted by Higbee and Siaka (2005) voiced that their GC “teachers seem
interested in understanding [their] background as it relates to learning” (p. 117).
Several studies showed that there was a prevalence of community college
faculty who perceived their students to have low academic ability and motivation
(Deil and Rosenbaum, 2007; Dougherty, 1994; U.S. Department of Education,
2004). As Dougherty (1994) stated, “These low expectations feed a self-fulfilling
prophecy…and tend to lead teachers to withdraw attention and praise from poorer
students, which in turn reinforces the very poverty of the student performance that is
being decried” (p. 90-91). Specifically, after interviewing fifty-four faculty and
staff, Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) found that most faculty and counselors at
Northwest felt that if students are under-prepared, remedial placement is preferable
than enrolling them in classes in which they are under-prepared. They also
presumed that if the students were misplaced, they would become frustrated and give
up. A College professor at Northwest explained, “If there‟s not a common
31
background [of the student population], and you have so-so students who are not
completely confident of themselves as students, then you‟re going to have to support
them…We assume we‟re not getting all of the A students who aren‟t confident, and
you have to kind of keep them afloat, particularly when it gets to be hard” (Deil-
Amen and Rosenbaum, 2002, p. 7).
The low expectations and negative perceptions made by the faculty may
contribute to the students‟ negative perceptions of the faculty. For example,
emerging from developmental math students‟ autobiographies, 61% of the students
described bad math teachers as those who "made students feel stupid" and graded
unfairly. Some students also voiced that “teachers who failed to connect with their
classes, or those who were boring, mean, and disliked their job and students” had
negative effects on their learning (Caniglia and Duranczyk, 1999, p. 51).
Subsequently, through individual interviews with sixteen developmental education
students, Carranza (2007) found that “bad teachers” had a profound effect on
students‟ motivation to achieve. The same students also complained about the lack
of support, poor advising and lack of interest in student success from other faculty
members outside of the developmental education department (Carranza, 2007).

Peers
Friends and peers have been another source of support for students in
preparation for post-secondary education and success in college. Dominick, Stevens
and Smith, (2007) noted that twenty-four students in their qualitative study indicated
32
that friends had an impact on their first-year college experience. Particularly, one
student indicated that despite her bad ACT score, her friend continuously encouraged
her to apply and enroll in college. Additionally, via individual interviews conducted
by Carranza (2007), students shared how other students served as role models and
expressed how they learned from them, which helped them to succeed. Improving
social support for minority, low-income and first-generation students is one of the
recommendations made by Martinez and Klopott (2003) to aid them in preparing for
college. They concluded that doing so will help these students in their academic and
emotional development. Furthermore, they believe that maintaining a strong social
support network is the way for students to access college preparatory information.

Access to Information
Research shows that there is a gap in the information students obtain in
regards to preparing for and transitioning into college. Specifically, middle and low-
income students acquire little knowledge in terms of what is required to attend
college and how to apply for college (Rosenbaum, 2001; Orfield and Paul, 1993).
Furthermore, students are required to take an array of required exams in high school
and college and may be confused or lack the knowledge when taking such tests.
High school and college counselors play a vital role in disseminating such
information but their job duties have changed over the years. Thus, there seems to be
a lack of information that remedial/developmental education students receive, which
33
may contribute to a delay in the length of time to graduation or even encourage
students to drop-out.
Students seem to be misinformed or lack pertinent information about college
requirements. In a qualitative study conducted by Carranza (2007), students in
developmental courses articulated an awareness of the disadvantages that they faced
before entering college but were uninformed about the preparation needed for
college. One student expressed that nobody told him he needed to take college prep
courses in high school and felt that people expected him to have knowledge of this
requirement.
In most institutions, remedial courses are considered the gateway to college
courses but students do not receive college credit for such courses. Consequently,
when taking remedial/developmental courses, students may experience a lengthy
delay to graduation and they may be unaware of such a delay. In a study conducted
by Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002), students in developmental education voiced
that they “often go for several months, a full semester, or even a full year without
knowing that their remedial courses are not counting towards a degree” (p. 260). In
another study conducted by Valeri-Gold, Callahan, Deming, Mangram and Errico
(1997), after students were enrolled in the developmental class, they realized that it
may slow them down but continued to voice that they felt a strong obligation to
finish college in four years. Students may not be aware of some policies; for
example, approximately two-thirds of all campuses nationally restrict enrollment to
34
some classes until the remediation sequence is complete (NCES, 1996). Lack of
information may cause further delay in students‟ education.
Conversely, Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) studied two community
colleges that emphasized a “stigma-free” approach. Contrary to the “cooling out”
approach where community colleges find ways to get students to lower their high
expectations for obtaining a Bachelor‟s degree and are encouraged to choose an
alternative career goal, these two community colleges purposefully avoid stigma in
their approach. They attempt to not judge students‟ abilities, encourage all students
to transfer to a four-year college, downplay the negative aspects of students‟
placement and attempt to de-emphasize students‟ failures. Deil-Amen and
Rosenbaum (2002) found that this approach “delays recognition and fails to
encourage students to choose alternative educational and career paths” (p. 6). They
also found that many students were confused and it caused a lot of misperceptions
among the students. Specifically, 73% of the students in remedial classes either
thought these classes would count towards their degree or were unsure about the
status of their remedial credits. Due to these misperceptions, students lost time
taking classes they did not need and students were unclear of the length of time
needed to obtain a degree (Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum, 2002).

Placement Exams
One of the alignment issues between high school and college is the confusing
variety of exams that students are required to take. Some of the most common
35
exams that students take in high school include state-mandated assessments,
Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), Scholastic Assessment
Test (SAT) and the ACT assessment (Kirst and Bracco, 1996). Furthermore, they
are typically required to take several placement exams in college, which assess
students‟ current skills in areas such as English, reading and math and determine the
entry course that a student can take (Maxwell, Hagedorn, Cypers, Lester and Moon,
2004). Kirst and Bracco (1996) explained that many colleges and universities devise
their own placement exams and disregard secondary school standards. There is also
little uniformity among these tests, leaving first year students confused and
misinformed. These students are found to have little knowledge about the content of
the placement exams, score poorly and are then placed into remedial/developmental
education. Additionally, if students are unaware, these tests could be viewed as
barriers and force students to enroll in such courses. This can be disadvantageous to
the under-represented minority and low SES students who were unfairly placed due
to the outcome of the placement exam. Moreover, there is a gap in placement and
course matching, meaning that it is not clear as to the “extent and in what ways
students comply with placement assignments” (Maxwell, Hagedorn, Cypers, Lester
and Moon, 2004; Spurling, 2000). Finally, through focus groups with students at
various community colleges, although Bueschel (1994) experienced varied reactions,
several students affirmed the aforementioned and expressed that they were surprised
when they found out that they were required to take a placement exam and “stunned
by their poor performance” (p. 269). Furthermore, in a study by Caniglia and
36
Duranczyk (1999), the students in developmental math voiced through their
autobiographies that standardized tests such as the ACCUPLACER and ACT exams
caused them to have negative feelings about their math ability. Consequently, high
schools and colleges need to do a better job of preparing students for various
standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, ACCUPLACER and COMPASS
placement exams.

High School and College Counselors
High school counselors play a vital role in disseminating information and
preparing students for college. Researchers contend that they can have a positive
impact on improving students‟ academic outcomes. Many studies have determined a
positive relationship between counselors and several student outputs such as
academic outcomes (Lapan, Gysbers and Sun, 1997; Lee, 1993; Whiston and Sexton,
1998), educational planning (Peterson, Long and Billups, 1999), career maturity
(Luzzo and Pierce, 1996) and career decision making (Hughey, Lapan and Gysbers,
1993), as well as student learning and achievement (Jacques and Brorsen, 2002).
Although researchers contend that there are many positive relationships
between counselors and students, one of the biggest challenges that high school
counselors face is the low number of counselors per student at the high school level.
Nationally, there is an average of 284 students for every guidance counselor (U.S.
Department of Education, 2004). As a result, these counselors are not able to spend
much of their time on post-secondary issues (Sink and Stroh, 2003; Lapan, Brigman
37
and Campbell, 2003; Boutwell and Myrick, 1992; Lapan, Gysbers and Sun, 1997;
Lapan, Gysbers and Petroski, 2001; Webb, Brigman and Campbell, 2005).
The amount of work that high school counselors carry out on a daily basis is
very extensive and time-consuming. Specifically, they provide individual and group
career and educational counseling. They also help students evaluate their abilities,
interests, talents and personalities to decide their academic and career goals.
Furthermore, high school counselors work with students who have academic and
social development problems or other special needs, help students deal with social,
behavioral and personal problems and teach life skills. Finally, they collaborate and
consult with various stakeholders such as parents, teachers, school administrators,
school psychologists, medical professionals and social workers to develop and
implement strategies to help students succeed (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). It
is argued that high school counselors spend majority of their time on disciplinary
problems, emotional needs of students and course scheduling (McDonough, Korn
and Yamasaki, 1997). This means that they are not spending much of their time
helping students prepare for college.
Several studies have shown that some counselors lack the knowledge to
properly assist students in making sound decisions regarding college choices (Orfield
and Paul, 1993; Rosenbaum, 2001). Additionally, if the counselors have the
knowledge and information, they may withhold it for various reasons. For example,
in a study conducted by Rosenbaum, Miller and Krei (1996), they found that
counselors do not enjoy giving students bad news when students are under-prepared
38
because they do not want the students to feel bad. Other counselors articulated that
they do not want to provide advice about their future, for they feel that the students
do not listen to them or they lack the authority to provide such information. Thus,
these counselors promote the college-for-all approach and push all students to go to
college. Furthermore, Rosenbaum (2001) contends that counselors serve as
gatekeepers to post-secondary information and says, “Guidance counselors do not
tell students what level of high school achievement is needed for them to succeed in
community college, so students are lulled into a complacency that leaves them
unprepared for getting a college degree” (2001, p. 80). Finally, Orfield and Paul
(1993) found that high school counselors were not providing the students with
pertinent information regarding the prerequisites for college. For example, the
students were uninformed about course-taking requirements of selective colleges and
financial aid opportunities.
College counselors or advisors also play a significant role in disseminating
information to students but are students benefiting from this information? In a study
conducted by Kreysa (2006), academic advisors encouraged students to enroll in
remedial courses if their past academic work indicated that they needed to catch up
academically with their peers. Furthermore, in a study by Deil-Amen and
Rosenbaum (2002), college counselors at Northwest felt that it was important to not
move students to college level courses too quickly, for it may be too difficult for
them to handle. One counselor in particular felt that students drop out of college due
to frustration causing them to “give up and walk away,” so they should be provided
39
the opportunity and skills that they are lacking. A student at the same institution
articulated that she took remedial classes, which her adviser told her to do, but she
was unaware she would not receive college credit for those courses. She further
mentioned that she was not aware that the placement test dictated the type of courses
that she was able to take; therefore, she took it lightly and scored low on the
placement exam. Additionally, this student did not know she could not take any
college classes until she passed that remedial course and completed the remedial
program. Finally, this student articulated that the snowball effect to this decision
was that her financial aid paid for the remedial courses that do not count towards her
college degree. Although we cannot be certain, it seems likely that many students in
similar situations have the same kind of experiences. Additionally, providing
accurate information regarding college preparation and the college experience is
particularly important for under-prepared students.

Cost
While enrolled in remediation, students accumulate debt, spend additional
time and money and bear the opportunity cost of lost earnings. Furthermore,
approximately two-thirds of campuses nationally restrict enrollment to some classes
until remediation is complete (NCES, 1996). Therefore, in some states, students
deplete their eligibility of financial aid (Bailey, Jeong and Cho, 2008) by using it up
on non-credit courses. For example, at the University of Nevada Reno, it costs $306
per student to take remedial courses (Jacobsen, 2006), which will not go toward a
40
college degree and are typically covered by financial aid. Students then have to
spend additional money for college courses before they can graduate. In the
meantime, students may run out of the money which they received through financial
aid.
Students may choose to enroll in community colleges over four-year
institutions to minimize the cost, as they are less expensive (Long and Kurlaender,
2009), but these students are less likely to apply for financial aid on time and lack
awareness of the deadlines (Bueschel, 1996). Thus, these students do not receive the
aid and cannot attend college or receive the aid late.

Implications
Few sound methodologically, comprehensive, large-scale, multi-institutional
evaluations of post-secondary remedial programs have been done (Bahr, 2008). An
analysis over the past ten years and a review of the literature on remedial and
developmental education find that a bulk of the studies are seriously flawed
methodologically, where a large amount of the studies are quantitative and isolated
to a single institution (Boylan and Saxon, 1999a; O‟Hear and MacDonald, 1995).
Furthermore, most states and colleges do not have exit standards for remedial
courses and do not perform systematic evaluation of their programs (Crowe, 1998;
Weissman, Bulakowski and Jumisko, 1997). Additionally, placement exams assess
students‟ current skills in areas such as English, reading and math and determine the
entry course that students can take (Maxwell, Hagedorn, Cypers, Lester and Moon,
41
2004). Few studies have examined the concept of matching the placement exam and
remedial/developmental course-taking. Roueche and Roueche (1993) recommended
that “basic skills assessment and placement in appropriate courses should be
mandatory” (p. 251). Finally, there is very little literature on stigma in
developmental education (Pedelty, 2001). Valeri-Gold, Callahan, Deming, Mangram
and Errico (1997) conducted one of the few studies that cover students‟ educational
attitudes, hopes, dreams, fears and expectations in developmental education.

Conclusion
A review of the literature supports the importance of the study by describing
the challenges in the leaky pipeline between high school and college. Specifically,
the body of literature shows that although more students are attending post-
secondary institutions, many students are under-prepared for the rigor of college
courses and end up in remedial/developmental education. Another critical factor that
affects a student‟s readiness for college is the rigorousness of courses taken in high
school. The assumption is that the less rigorous or college preparatory classes that
are taken in high school, the more likely it is that the student will take
remedial/developmental courses in college and the less likely it is that the student
will obtain a Bachelor‟s degree. Additionally, the findings show that students are
less prepared in math than any other subject. There are also a high number of low-
income and minority students who are under-prepared for the rigorousness of
college. According to a review of the literature, low-income and minority students
42
are less likely to enroll in rigorous or college preparatory courses in high school,
which may increase the likelihood that they will be required to take one or more
remedial courses in college. On the continent, African American and Latino students
are most represented in remedial/developmental education. In Hawai`i, Native
Hawaiian and Filipino students are most represented in remedial/developmental
education. Inevitably, a review of the literature emphasizes the importance of
preparing students, especially low-income and minority students, for college.
The literature review suggests that family, teachers and peers have both
positive and negative impacts on students‟ abilities to prepare for and successfully
transfer into college. Additionally, several qualitative studies emphasize a
disconnect between the goals of what high schools are trying to achieve in preparing
students for college versus students‟ perceptions of the inadequate preparation
provided by their high schools.
Finally, the body of literature focuses on the information or lack of
information that students receive, which impacts their readiness for college.
Furthermore, it emphasizes the reliance on key players such as high school and
college counselors to provide them with information in order to prepare and
transition them into college. Thus, this study will focus on the factors that impact
students‟ abilities to prepare for college and institutional practices that influence their
perceptions.
43
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Forty-one percent of all students in post-secondary education enrolled in
remedial coursework (Adelman, 2004) and overall, three-fifths of students who enter
two-year public institutions require at least one year of remedial/developmental
coursework (Adelman, 2005; Attewell et. al., 2006). Enrollment in many
remedial/developmental courses lowers the chances of graduation and increases the
amount of time it takes to obtain a degree (Attewell et. al., 2006). Additionally,
students enrolled in remedial/developmental coursework are academically under-
prepared and regarded as a major risk factor, in terms of retention, at post-secondary
institutions.
This qualitative case study aimed to serve two central purposes. First, it
identified the types of community college students who placed in college math but
chose to enroll in a remedial/developmental math course. Since there were many
risks for these students who chose to take remedial/developmental math when
provided the opportunity to take college math, it was important to obtain their
background information, such as demographics, ethnicity, high school course-taking
patterns and high school. Secondly, this study examined the internal and external
factors that contributed to their choice of placement. The importance of examining
such phenomenon was to uncover the students‟ perceptions and attitudes as to why
they made such a choice and who impacted their decisions.
44
Specifically, this study sought to understand and address the following
questions:
1. Why did these students choose to take developmental math versus college
math?
2. What are the perceptions and attitudes of "low-router" students?
3. How do students understand their situation, and what institutional
practices influence their perceptions?
This chapter is organized by describing the research design, sample
population, instrumentation, procedures and methods used to collect the data, data
analysis and ethical considerations.

Research Design
Careful selection of the methodology is important in any empirical research
study. Two different types of methodologies were explored prior to selection. The
first type was qualitative research, where Creswell (1998) explains it as “an inquiry
process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of inquiry that
explore a social or human problem” (p. 15). A theory, concept or hypothesis is
typically uncovered through this process (Merriam, 1998). The second type was
quantitative research, where knowledge is gained through an experimental design,
which emerges from a hypothesis or tests for a particular theory, is quantifiable and
measures the reactions of large amounts of people through a predetermined set of
45
questions where the outcome of such data is generalizable to a larger population
(Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).
Qualitative methodology suited the nature of this study, as it examined the
“low-router” students‟ perceptions and attitudes. Based on the placement scores,
“low-router” students were those who chose to enroll in remedial/developmental
math when placed into college math. Typically, human perceptions and attitudes,
such as what is being studied, are examined through qualitative inquiry (Jones, et.
al., 2006). The five key characteristics to a qualitative study are (1) understanding
the participants‟ perspective from their point of view, (2) the primary data collection
instrument and analysis occurs through the researcher, (3) the research typically
involves fieldwork, (4) concepts, hypotheses or theories emerge from the research
and (5) the findings from the research are descriptive in nature and focus on
“process, meaning and understanding” (Merriam, 1998, p. 8). Therefore, qualitative
methodology enabled the participants in this study to describe their transitional
experiences from high school to college and explain the internal and external factors
that influenced their decision to enroll in the remedial math course rather than the
college math course. Through the rich descriptions provided by these students, this
research may facilitate the emergence of new concepts, hypotheses or theories.
For this study, the appropriate methodological frame to employ was a
descriptive case study. As Merriam (1998) notes, “a descriptive case study is one
that presents a detailed account of the phenomenon under study” (p. 38) – in this
case, the perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in remedial/
46
developmental education. Descriptive case studies are utilized when few studies
have been conducted. In education, programs and practices are often the focal point
of study. These studies build theory and are used as a database for future
comparisons (Merriam, 1998).
The purpose of a case study design is to “gain an in-depth understanding of
the situation and meaning for those involved” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). Specifically,
the descriptive case study design enabled the researcher to utilize interviews,
documents and historical information to uncover the phenomenon of students who
choose to begin their college career at a remedial level. The goal of this study was to
help educators better understand, through rich descriptions from students, why they
chose to take a remedial/developmental math course when provided an opportunity
to take college math.

Sample Population
This qualitative study was conducted at WW Community College under the
University of Hawai„i system. The selected institution is a diverse, small community
college with a population of approximately 1,900 students. Students at this
institution can only obtain a Liberal Arts degree. WW Community College serves
the highest percentage of minority and Native Hawaiian students in the state. The
Fall 2007 enrollment report indicated that 77% of all students were minorities, of
which 38% were Native Hawaiian (UH WCC, 2007). Furthermore, the Fall 2005
47
enrollment report indicated that this institution served 91% of in-state students (UH
MAPS, 2005).
WW Community College offers eighteen math courses. Five are remedial
math and the rest are college math courses. All math courses numbered 100 and
above are considered college math. Anything below Math 100 is considered
developmental or remedial math. Elementary Algebra II, or Math 25, is the typical
remedial math course that students take prior to their enrollment in college math (UH
WCC, 2008b). At 53%, WW Community College enrolls the third highest
percentage of students in remedial or developmental math in the state (UHCC,
2009).
Students are mandated to take the American College Testing (ACT)
computer-adaptive college placement test (COMPASS) before they can enroll in a
math course. This test was designed by ACT Inc. and is on the list of approved
“Ability-to-Benefit” (ATB) tests and passing scores approved by the U.S.
Department of Education (2006). This test evaluates the students‟ current skill in
math and determines the entry course that a student can take in the sequence of math
courses provided (UH WCC, 2008c). Students must take this computer-based test,
which qualifies them to take a certain math class based on their COMPASS score.
The following is the breakdown of scores in the following table, which is used at all
University of Hawai„i campuses:
48
Table 1: Breakdown of Math Compass Test Scores

Test Score Math Comment
Pre-Algebra 0-15 You need to review your basic mathematics. Review on
your own or take a class through Windward School for
Adults.
Pre-Algebra 16-30 You qualify to take Math 20
Pre-Algebra 31-46 You qualify to take Math 22
Pre-Algebra 47-100 You qualify to take Math 24
Algebra 0-25 Refer to Pre-Algebra score
Algebra 26-33 You qualify to take Math 24
Algebra 34-49 You qualify to take Math 25
Algebra 50-61 You qualify to take Math 25, 100, 101, or 115.
Algebra 62-74 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 103, or 115.
Algebra 75-100 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 115, or 135.
Colg Algebra 0-30 Refer to Algebra score
Colg Algebra 31-55 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 103, or 115.
Colg Algebra 56-70 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 115, or 135.
Colg Algebra 71-100 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 115, 140, or
203
Trigonometry 1-30 Refer to College Algebra score
Trigonometry 31-45 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 115, 140, or
203
Trigonometry 46-100 You qualify to take Math 100, 101, 111, 115, 203, or
205

Preliminary data included a list of student identification numbers, gender,
ethnicity, grades received for the course and COMPASS placement test scores of
students who completed Math 25 during the Fall 2007, Spring 2008, Fall 2008,
Spring 2009 and Fall 2009 semesters. This data was obtained through WW
49
Community College‟s Institutional Research (IR) office. This data was secured on
the researcher‟s computer, which is password protected. Purposeful sampling was
used to select the students. As Creswell explains, “the inquirer selects individuals
and sites for study because they can purposefully inform an understanding of the
research problem and central phenomenon of the study” (2007, p. 125).
Furthermore, establishing the selection criteria to choose the people to be studied is
essential (Merriam, 1998). Therefore, all students who met the following criteria
were identified:
a. The students must have obtained a score above 50 for the Algebra portion
of their COMPASS test, which placed them into the credit math course,
but they enrolled in Math 24 or Math 25, which are the remedial math
courses.
b. The students must have received a letter grade. Students who received an
“N” or “W” were omitted.
c. The students must have completed, were currently enrolled in or had
experience taking Math 24 or Math 25 during the Fall 2007, Spring 2008,
Fall 2008, Spring 2009 or Fall 2009 semesters.
The list was narrowed down to nine students, who were individually
interviewed and selected based on their willingness to participate and the ease of
obtaining supplemental documentation, such as their high school mission and vision,
and archival records to include their past GPA and high school course-taking
patterns (Creswell, 1998). The researcher attempted to select a diverse pool of
50
participants from various ethnicities and backgrounds. The intent of this study was
to interview students only.

Instrumentation
Two instruments were used in this study: the pre-interview questionnaire and
a semi-structured interview questionnaire. Furthermore, documentations were
collected from the website, such as the math courses offered, the mission and vision
of the school and the counselors‟ job descriptions.
The purpose of the pre-interview questionnaire was to obtain basic
demographic information such as age, ethnicity, place of origin, high school
attended, current enrollment status at WW Community College and their willingness
to participate in the study. The background information from each student enabled
the researcher to select a diverse pool of students. The pre-interview questionnaire
did not take more than five minutes to complete (see Appendix A).
The second instrument was an in-depth, semi-structured interview
questionnaire used to obtain students‟ perceptions about developmental math and the
internal and external factors that contributed to their choice of placement (see
Appendix B). The questions were based on two qualitative studies conducted by
Pedalty (2001) and Dominick et al. (2007) (see Appendix C). The questions were
slightly altered to better reflect the variables of this study, which are misplaced
students at WW Community College who chose to take developmental Math 25
instead of college math.
51
The interview questions were tested via a pilot interview, which occurred
prior to implementing this study. The value of the pilot interview was to sharpen the
researcher‟s skills at interviewing, which ensured that the interview questions were
correctly worded and easy to understand, and give the researcher an opportunity to
re-craft the interview questions (Merriam, 1998). After the pilot interview was
conducted, the questions were narrowed down to no more than 30 questions.

Data Collection
The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Students contacted all students who
met the aforementioned criteria (Appendix D). Out of 61 students who met these
criteria, nine students were willing to participate in this study: seven males and two
females. The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Students obtained consent from each
participant, who was promised confidentiality prior to the interview. Specific dates
and times for the individual interviews were established with the students. The
students were asked to fill out a quick pre-interview questionnaire, which took
approximately five minutes to complete (Appendix A). The purpose of the
individual interviews was to capture and observe feelings, behaviors and reactions
that could not otherwise be obtained through a survey (Merriam, 1998). The student
was told that the interview would last approximately 60 - 90 minutes, which allowed
the researcher to ask the participants to expand or clarify a particular response and
allow for new ideas to emerge on the topic (Merriam, 1998). Individual interviews
were conducted between November 2009 and December 2009. The researcher
52
conducted the interviews in a conference room at WW Community College. Each
interview was semi-structured and the researcher followed an interview guide (see
Appendix B). The researcher audio-recorded the one-on-one interviews with a
digital recorder and took hand-written notes.
The second part of the data collection process was to collect documents from
each participant‟s high school. The documents included the mission and vision of
the high school, policies and procedures that governed course-taking patterns,
number of high school counselors employed, strategic plan, and data reports of their
high school graduates. This information was obtained through the website of each
student‟s respective high school.

Data Analysis
To ensure confidentiality, all participants‟ names and verifiable information
were omitted. Pseudonyms were used in place of their names. The researcher
conducted a member check. This means that after each interview, the data was
transcribed and sent to the participant for review to ensure that the information was
accurate. The researcher also conducted a peer review by asking peers to provide
feedback on the research.
The second part of the analysis process was to review all information
collected, including the interview transcriptions and documents, in order to get a
sense of the overall data (Creswell, 1998). The data was then sorted. According to
Wolcott (2001), when sorting the data, the researcher should look for common
53
themes and categories. Merriam (1998) suggests that categories or themes are
constructed from recurring patterns or regularities of the data and should reflect the
purpose of the research. The data was organized into files and could be easily
retrieved. The researcher coded all of the interviews. The themes were placed into
categories and each given a name, which was derived from three sources: the
researcher, the participants or an outside source such as the literature. The categories
were then further sorted and the units of information were coded (Merriam, 1998).
Finally, based on the interviews and documents, the data was triangulated and
analyzed.

Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were upheld to the highest standards. First, this study
was kept confidential and no personally identifiable information was included in the
research results. Secondly, the research data was kept confidential and all research
records and audiotapes were stored in a locked desk drawer at the researcher‟s place
of residence for the duration of the research project. Participation in this research
project was completely voluntary; therefore, if students did not wish to participate in
this study, they were free to withdraw at any time during the process. Finally, the
researcher followed all policies and procedures set forth by the University of
Southern California‟s and University of Hawai„i‟s Internal Review Board to ensure
that ethical considerations were followed.
54
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Overview
This chapter provides a description of the perceptions and attitudes of “low-
router” students in developmental math and the internal and external factors that
contributed to their choice of placement. This chapter is divided into five sections.
The first section discusses the student characteristics. The next three sections are
divided by the research questions, which are:
1. Why did these students choose to take developmental math versus college
math?
2. What are the factors that explain perceptions and attitudes of “low-router”
students?
3. How do students understand their situation, and what institutional
practices influence their perceptions?
Finally, the last section discusses the constituents that supported or hindered “low-
router” students‟ choice of math placement.
The short, written questionnaire provided background information about the
participants. The first theme emerged from this data: student characteristics of “low-
router” students. Additionally, the open-ended questionnaire provided students the
opportunity to contribute anecdotal information regarding their experiences and four
additional themes emerged: path, constituents that supported or hindered “low-
55
router” students‟ placement choice, and perceptions and attitudes. A pseudonym was
assigned to each participant to maintain anonymity.
The Office of the Vice Chancellor for Students at WW Community College
sent out three (3) e-mail invitations to the aforementioned students to participate in
this study (Appendix D). Staff of the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Students also
called these students. After sending three (3) e-mail invitations and making personal
telephone calls to these students, nine (9) students responded, filled out the pre-
interview questionnaire and were individually interviewed.

Student Characteristics
The students were asked to fill out a short pre-interview questionnaire, which
provided an overall picture of the characteristics of these students. From this
questionnaire, I obtained basic demographic information such as age, ethnicity, place
of origin, high school attended, year graduated, current enrollment status at WW
Community College, intended major and whether or not they were a first generation
college student, which became the first sub-theme. Additionally, two (2) other sub-
themes emerged from the individual interviews: high school experience and college
experience.

Demographics
The student participants were overwhelmingly males. Out of nine (9)
participants, seven (7) were males and two (2) were females. Additionally, their
56
ethnicities varied tremendously. One of the females disclosed that she was
Caucasian. The other female disclosed that she was Filipino and Caucasian. Three
(3) males disclosed that they were Native Hawaiian mixed with two other races, one
(1) male disclosed that he was Caucasian, one (1) male disclosed that he was Filipino
and two (2) males disclosed that they were Filipino mixed with another race.
Furthermore, five (5) participants indicated that they were first generation college
students and four (4) participants indicated that their parents attended college. All
students interviewed were traditional college students with an exception of one
student who graduated from high school in 1999 and enlisted in the military prior to
his enrollment in college (Table 2). Thus, their ages ranged between 18 to 29 years
of age. Finally, seven participants attended a high school on the Windward side of
Oahu. The other two students attended high school in California and Alaska. The
student who attended high school in Alaska was born and raised in Hawai`i.

High school experience
During the individual interviews, all students, with the exception of Robert,
disclosed that they took Algebra II during their junior year in high school. There
were two students who said that they did not know what grade they received for this
course but knew they had passed. Two students said that they received a “C,” two
students said that they received a “B” and two students said that they received either
an “A” or a “B.” Both Mack and Bean took a fourth year of math during their senior
year (Table 2). Robert voiced that he did not take any college math in high school
57
because “I never thought I would be in college and I thought I was going into the
military.” The group‟s overall high school GPA ranged from a 2.8 to a 3.389. One
student stated that she received a 2.5 GPA in high school.
Several students readily disclosed their involvement in various programs that
made a positive impact on their high school experience. Three participants said that
they were involved in sports. Kai said that he played football, wrestling and
baseball. Mack said that he played tennis, soccer, football and volleyball. Ian said
that he was involved in paddling. Two participants said that they were involved in a
leadership class where “you plan all the functions - fundraising for your school, you
do prom and you do your class t-shirts and stuff.” Kawika expressed that
participation in the leadership class “really, like, taught you how to keep organiz[ed]
and you need to meet deadlines.” Kawika also said that he was heavily involved in
both marching band and jazz band. Ian disclosed that he was involved in the
Communications Academy where he announced the morning news and learned to
make music videos. Additionally, Jade stated that she was involved in the Jump
Start Program and took Sociology 100 and Econ 131 during her Senior year in high
school. Finally, Peter expressed that his high school selected him to be in the Health
Doc Program where he was a Personal Career Assistant (PCA) and learned different
techniques to care for the elderly people.

58
College experience
Most of the students attended college right after high school. However, two
students attended college one semester after they graduated from high school and
one student joined the military first and attended college nine years later. All nine
students indicated that they chose to attend WW Community College because the
campus was within close proximity to their home.
WW Community College was the only option for three students. Two of
these students explained that they had obtained a full-scholarship to attend WW
Community College so they felt they had no other options. The other six students
expressed that they thought about attending other universities on Oahu or within the
Continental United States, but chose WW Community College because of the lower
cost of tuition, proximity or they were not accepted into the four-year institution of
their choice.
All of the students expressed that they intend to transfer to another institution
with the exception of one student who expressed that she has no intention of
returning to school in the near future. Three students indicated that they intend to
transfer to a four-year institution within the state of Hawai`i, three students indicated
that they intend to transfer to a four-year institution within the Continental United
States, one student indicated that he will transfer to a four-year college on Oahu or
California and one student indicated that he will transfer to another Community
College on Oahu. All eight students expressed their desire to transfer to a four-year
59
institution or another Community College because WW Community College does
not offer their intended major (See Table 2).

Table 2: Demographics

Pseudonym Gender Ethnicity Age
1
st

Generation
College
Student
Year
Graduated
HS
Last Math in
HS
Intended
Major
Buck M Filipino 20 No 2007 Algebra II Business
Kawika M
Hawaiian
German
Japanese
20 Yes 2006 Algebra II
Education/
Forensic
Science
Mack M
Hawaiian
Japanese
Chinese
19 Yes 2007
Probability
and Statistics
Fire Science
Bean F
Filipino
Caucasian
18 No 2009 Trigonometry Nursing
Jade F Caucasian 20 No 2007 Algebra II
Dropped
out of
college
Ian M
Filipino
Caucasian
20 No 2007 Algebra II
Theater/
Medical
Science
Kai M
Hawaiian
Filipino
Spanish
21 Yes 2006 Algebra II Architecture
Robert M Caucasian 29 Yes 1999
Agricultural
Math and
Mechanics
Physician‟s
Assistant
Peter M
Filipino
Samoan
19 Yes 2008 Algebra II
High
School
Teacher/
Counselor
60
In summary, majority of the students were males, with varying ethnicities and
ages ranging from 18 to 29 years. Additionally, all but one of the students were born
and raised in Hawai`i. Furthermore, most of the students disclosed that they attended
high school on the Windward side of Oahu, took Algebra II in high school and
passed with an “A” or “B” and graduated with a GPA that ranged from a 2.8 to
3.389. Moreover, the students expressed that they were involved in various types of
programs, which made a positive impact on their high school experience. Finally,
majority of the students attended college right after high school, chose WW
Community College because the campus was within close proximity to their home
and plan to transfer to another institution sometime in the near future.

Research Question One Findings
Path
The second theme is linked to the first research question: Why did these
students choose to take developmental math versus college math? This section
describes the path that these students took from high school to college and how they
ended up in developmental math. This section is sub-divided into three sections: 1)
math placement test, 2) decision to enroll in developmental math and 3) advice to
other students.
Math placement test. The University of Hawai`i system requires all students
to take the American College Testing (ACT) computer-adaptive college placement
test (COMPASS) before they can enroll in a math course. This test evaluates the
61
students‟ current skill in math and determines the entry course that a student can take
in the sequence of math courses provided (UH WCC, 2008c). In order to uncover
the path that students took before enrolling in developmental math, they were asked
questions regarding the math placement test.
Majority of the students expressed that they took the math placement test
right after they graduated from high school. The two students who attended college
one semester after they graduated disclosed that they took the math placement test
the semester before they enrolled in college. Robert said that he took the math
placement test during Spring 2008, which is the first semester he attended college.
When the students were asked if they remember their math placement score, seven
students said that they did not remember it. However, two students stated that they
remembered their test scores. Ian was a little unsure about his math placement test
score but stated, “It was [a] 65 or something. It was in the 60‟s somewhere.” Peter
confidently stated, “I remember a 61 on math.”
All but one of the students expressed that they did not prepare or study for the
math placement test. Specifically, two students explained that they did not prepare
for the math placement test because they were “lazy.” Buck said, “I didn‟t feel like
it. I didn‟t really care.” Two students stated that they did not study for the math
placement test because it should test your current knowledge in math. Specifically,
Mack said, “I kinda just came in and took it, figured it, it‟s off of what you kind of
just know already.” Additionally, Kawika said, “…I figured that if it‟s a placement
test that you should be placed in [what] you know…So I believe that taking the
62
placement test should be what you retain from high school or life itself.” Finally, Ian
disclosed that he did not prepare for the math placement test because “I didn‟t know
how to prepare.” He also said that he “didn‟t place it at a very high value.”
Only one student disclosed that he studied for the math placement test.
Robert said, “My wife got me a book and told me I should study it a little bit.
Um…I think it was from Borders, …I think it was the SAT math book that she had.”
Decision to enroll in developmental math. Despite the fact that all nine
students qualified to take college math, they opted to enroll in developmental math.
When asked why they chose this path, the students shared varying views. Kawika
and Jade said that when they took the math placement test, the proctor at the testing
center told them they had placed into developmental math or Math 25. Specifically,
Kawika said,
When I took the test…the guy [at the testing office] said, „Oh okay, so [you]
placed into Math 25‟…so when I set up the appointment with [the counselor],
it was just based off of the test score to say that that‟s the level that I
performed at.

Similarly, Jade expressed that her intended major was Criminology and the proctor at
the testing center told her to take Math 25,
because I was placed into a math class but my degree that I was going for
required a higher math class and he said that I wouldn‟t be able to go to that
math class without going back and taking 25 anyways. So like…Ohhh! That
sucks.

Some of the students stated that their college counselors told them to take
developmental math or Math 25. For example, Ian said, “[My college counselor]
told me that I had to do this one (Math 25) because I got this score so it would be
63
best if I did that.” Furthermore, Bean expressed, “I was told that I needed [Math 25]
for everything. Math 25 keeps your options open.” Additionally, Peter said that his
college counselor chose Math 25 for him and did not give him a reason. Finally,
Robert explained that he knew he had placed into college math but enrolled in
developmental math instead “because I realized my math shortcomings and I knew I
needed to start with a good base rather than trying to just jump in and get
overwhelmed.” Robert expressed that his counselor supported his decision to take
Math 24 before taking Math 25. Similarly, Buck said that his college counselor
advised him to take Math 25 as a brush-up course.
Two students expressed that they made an isolated decision to enroll in Math
25. Kai expressed that he took developmental math “cause I wasn‟t offered college
math.” After Kai was told that he qualified to take college math, he responded, “Oh
well. Then I figure [Math] 25 would brush me up on college algebra.” Mack said,
But I took [Math] 25 „cause um, it looked simple and I figured it, it um,
because my last course in high school was Probability [and] Statistics that
um, it was all calculator work…and I hadn‟t take[n] algebra in a while so I
decided to take Math 25 versus [Math] 100.

The students were asked if they could do it all over again, would they take
developmental math or Math 25 instead of college math. Five students expressed
that they would not have taken developmental math; rather they would have taken
college math. Four students expressed that they would have taken the same path
again and enroll in developmental math first before taking college math.
64
Ian and Peter expressed that they did not know they had the opportunity to
take college math. Ian said,
I probably just would have went for [Math] 100 already. I didn't realize that I
was so close. So, yeah, I just would've -- I probably would've gotten more
help from the teachers. I would have been straight up with her, you know,
how I'm not very comfortable but I'm going to learn as best as I can. But I
would have just went for it.

Peter expressed, “No! I would have taken college [math]. Now that I know. Oh,
shoot! I didn‟t know. I thought they said only Math 20 was not credit.”
Additionally, Buck said that he would not take Math 25 again because “it‟s a waste
of my time and money.” Finally, Jade said that she “would have gone on [her] own
time to study for the placement test. Going back to elementary algebra was really
easy.”
Two students who expressed that if they could do it all over again, they
would take the same path again because they needed a brush-up course. Kai
explained, “Just „cause I was out of school for a whole semester before enrolling. I
didn't know how fresh my memory was on math, so [Math] 25 was a good place to
start.” Additionally, Mack said, “Yeah. I'd do it again because even when I took
Math 25, some of the stuff was a little fuzzy and I had to refer back to the book to re-
read and re-learn how to do it.”
Advice to other students. The students were asked, “What advice would you
give to someone who is able to enroll in college math but thinking of enrolling in
developmental math or Math 25 next year?” Three students who said that they
would not take the same path again continued to express that they would advise
65
students against taking developmental math. Specifically, Bean‟s advice to other
students is to “take the college math and challenge yourself. Math 25 was all review.
It was the things that I already knew.” Peter said, “[I would] tell them like, if they
want that college credit, you know, don‟t go to Math 25. Try to learn as much math
as you can so you can enroll into a college credit math class.”
On the other hand, one student stated that he would advise other students to
take the same path and enroll in developmental math first before taking college math.
Specifically, Kawika expressed that he would tell other students that “Math 25 really
was helpful and it really prepared my for going into Math 103.”
Four students were neutral in their advice to other students and expressed that
they need to assess their readiness to enroll in college math. For example, Mack
expressed, “If they feel that they can‟t do Math 100 or [Math] 103, to go ahead and
do the Math 25.” Additionally, Kai said, “…if they know what they‟re doing, take
the college course, otherwise, take [Math] 25 to brush up.” Finally, Robert initially
stated, “Are they really confident? If you‟re confident in your math skills and you
actually do place high enough in the placement exam…take the higher math.” Later
in the conversation, Robert expressed,
I think I would tell them they should start off with at least a good base, just
an understanding „cause once you get in there, I mean that‟s going to go on
your transcript, you have to withdraw from it, so start at the bottom and work
your way up and try and just get it all done real fast.

In summary, majority of the students expressed that they took the math
placement test right after they graduated from high school; however, they did not
66
prepare for the test. Additionally, the students expressed that their decision to enroll
in developmental math rested on advice from various sources to include: 1) the
proctor at the testing center 2) college counselor, or 3) they made their own decision
without consulting anyone or they did not know they qualified for college math.
Interestingly, five students expressed that if they could do it all over again, they
would not have chosen the same path; however, four students stated that they would
take the same path and enroll in developmental math. Finally, only three students
expressed that they would advise students against enrolling in developmental math.
The other students provided neutral advice and expressed that the students need to
assess their readiness to take college math.

Research Question Two Findings
Factors that Explain “Low-Router” Students‟ Perceptions and Attitudes
In order understand the factors that contributed to the “low-router” students‟
choice of math placement, it is important to obtain a better understanding of their
perceptions and attitudes. Therefore, the next section is linked to the research
question: What are the perceptions and attitudes of "low-router" students?
Additionally, this section is divided into four sub-sections, which are 1) slacker
mentality, 2) pivotal moment, 3) transition and 4) perceptions and attitudes.
Slacker mentality. Several students expressed that they did not feel high
school was important and they were not serious about studying and obtaining good
grades. For example, three students described themselves as a “slacker” in high
67
school. Kai and Jade both used identical phrases and described themselves as
“slacker[s] in high school.” Kai elaborated by saying that he “didn‟t realize how
important GPA was” and explained that his high school “was all really too easy.
That's kind of why I slacked, I guess.” Jade said that she liked high school a lot but
described herself as a “slacker.” In addition, Mack described himself as a “slacker”
and explained that he did not take pre-calculus during his senior year in high school.
Similarly, three students expressed the same type of attitude in high school
although they did not specifically use the word “slacker.” For example, Ian
articulated that he “didn‟t really care about high school” during his freshman and
sophomore years. Additionally, he expressed, “I wasn't really excited about [high
school]. I was more excited about seeing my friends and hanging out with my
friends and ah of course do the friend thing, and parties and stuff like that.”
Additionally, Kawika said,
[In] high school,…I really didn't pay attention too much. Like for
me,…because I was in band, my high school life kinda, ah, revolved around
[band] where I would spend more time in the band room than I would at
home. So going to school, I mean I would go to school and I would go to
class but when it came to doing the work, it was just like now whatever gets
me by.

Finally, Robert expressed that his intention after high school was to join the military.
Therefore, Robert said, “I really skated out of [high school] because I told them that I
wasn‟t going on to college…I guess if you can play your cards right you can skate
out of there easily…”
68
Pivotal moment. While these students disclosed that they had a “slacker”
mentality in high school, four students expressed a pivotal moment in their lives
when they realized they needed to take high school more seriously. For example, Ian
said, “Towards the end of my junior year and my senior year, I think that's when I
began to, um, think about the future and think about where I was going for college
and what college I wanted to go to.” Additionally, Kawika explained that during his
senior year, he took a leadership class, which was an eye-opening experience. He
elaborated by saying that his participation in this program taught him how to be more
organized and he also explained that he was more diligent about turning in his
homework by the deadline. Furthermore, Jade realized that college was important
after she participated in the Running Start Program during her senior year in high
school. Jade explained that the Running Start program gave her an opportunity to
take two college classes. She expressed that she did really good in the college
courses; however, she “did not care about high school.” Finally, Robert realized that
college was important when he was in the military. He said, “I guess, about a year or
two into [the military], I knew I didn't want to do this for the rest of my life and I
wanted to actually go to college and get a good paying job and earn a degree.”
Transition to college. The students shared varying views on the perception of
their transitional experience from high school to college. Two students expressed
that their transition from high school to college was not very difficult. Conversely,
six students voiced that their transition into college did not meet their expectations.
For example, Jade and Mack expressed that attending WW Community College did
69
not feel like a “real college” because they grade you on attendance. They both
perceived college to be less strict than high school and they expected more freedom.
Additionally, Peter and Ian voiced that they were not prepared to take evening
classes. Peter expressed that he had to “catch the bus late at night” and Ian said that
he does not “function” very well in the evening, which made their transitions a little
challenging. Moreover, three students expressed that they were not prepared for the
lack of oversight and support in college. For example, Kawika expressed,
“…college is like, you didn‟t do the homework, okay, [the professor] is not going to
follow like how come you didn‟t do it.” Jade felt that it was “awkward to get help
from your professors…that‟s the biggest reason why I dropped out.”
Perceptions and attitudes. All of the students perceived their experience in
developmental math to be very positive. Additionally, all nine students immediately
spoke very highly of their math professors. For example, they perceived the
professors to be accommodating, helpful, pretty cool and nice. Specifically, Jade
said that her professor provided good explanations and Mack added, “they helped in
class if someone ever had a question on a problem, they make sure they went
through it very thoroughly to make sure everyone knew how to do it.” Finally,
Kawika expressed that developmental math provided a good foundation for the
subsequent college math courses, which he successfully completed.
The students were asked, “How do you think you are perceived by university
students who are not in developmental math?” Two students said, “I don‟t really
care,” Bean said, “That didn‟t really cross my mind” and Kai said, “I‟m just another
70
ordinary student.” Conversely, three students expressed that other students
perceived them negatively. Specifically, Mack said, “I guess they would say that
I‟m um, not as up-to-speed as they are, or maybe I struggle with math.”
Additionally, Ian said, “I guess they would think…he‟s gotta brush up on his math.”
Finally, Peter expressed that other students “probably think I‟m low. Like…ughl,
look, he[„s] not even getting college credit for his math…How did you score so low
if you got out of high school.”
Consequently, more students felt a level of stigma and believed that
developmental math students are inferior to students in college math. For example,
Kai expressed that students in college math thought “…[students in developmental
math] just can‟t grasp the concept of math.” Robert expressed, “I think
[developmental math students] would be perceived as the slackers or the kids who
aren‟t taking it serious…or not going to make it.” Bean stated, “[Developmental
math students‟] knowledge of math is not that great as those taking higher math
classes.” Finally, Peter expressed, “I think they just look at us as not as smart as
them.”
Previously, two students shared that their peers in college math viewed them
negatively; however, they did not express the same sentiment with other students in
developmental math. Mack expressed, “I think they would perceive them as just out
of high school, maybe, or people that are just getting their way back to school…or
just taking a refresher course.” Ian expressed, “I think if I was in a higher math…I
would just think that they were okay, getting further in their math.” Finally, two
71
students shared that everyone goes through it and felt it was not a “big deal.” Jade
felt that “the students [in developmental math] do not think about it.”
Interestingly, most of the students expressed that the positive and negative
perceptions did not influence their feelings about themselves as a student. However,
Ian expressed that “since I think that no one is really looking down on me, there is no
pressure to really impress anyone. You know, there‟s no pressure to try and do more
than what‟s expected.”
In summary, majority of the students expressed that they were “slackers” in
high school and felt they did not put in as much effort as they should have.
However, four of the students articulated that there was a pivotal moment in their
lives when they realized they wanted to attend college. Additionally, six students
expressed that their transition from high school to college did not meet their
expectations. Some felt like they were closely monitored, which made them feel like
WW Community College was not a “real college.” For others, they had to adjust to
the late night classes and the lack of oversight and support. Moreover, the students
unanimously expressed that they had a positive experience in developmental math
and spoke highly of their college math professors. However, some of the students
expressed a sense of stigma and felt they were inferior to the students in college
math.

72
Research Question Three Findings
“Low-Router” Students‟ Understanding of their Situation
The next section discusses the institutional practices that impacted the
students‟ decision to enroll in developmental math and the factors that influenced
their perceptions. This section is linked to research question three: How do students
understand their situation and what institutional practices influence their
perceptions?
Interestingly, majority of the students expressed that the institution notified
them via their acceptance packet that they needed to take the math placement test.
They expressed the importance of taking the math placement test and placed it into
the same category as turning in their financial aid forms and medical records. Some
of the students thought that if they did not take the math placement test, they would
not be able to register.
All but one of the students expressed that they did not prepare for the math
placement test because they were lazy or they felt that it should be an assessment of
their current knowledge of math. However, majority of the students expressed that if
the institution offered a math “brush-up” course, they would have taken it. Some of
the students said that they would have paid a nominal fee for the course and others
stated that they would have taken a math brush-up course if it were free. Only two
students expressed that they would not have enrolled in a math brush-up course if the
institution offered it.
73
Additionally, majority of the students expressed they were aware, prior to
enrolling in developmental math, that they were not going to receive college credit.
The students mentioned that it was “common knowledge.” However, two students
expressed that they did not know they were not receiving college credit. In fact, one
student was surprised when he realized he was not going to receive college credit
and stated, “What do you mean? Oh I thought only Math 20 was not college
credit…Why didn‟t my [counselor] put me in Math 100? I scored high enough.”
Finally, two students expressed that they encountered a roadblock due to
institutional policies when attempting to take college math after enrolling in
developmental math. For example, Mack expressed,
After I failed Math 25 the first time with a D and I realized that homework
was the issue, so I said, “Okay, but I got it.” So I was going to try to take
Math 100. They said I couldn‟t take it because I had gotten a D in Math 25.
So I said but I qualified for it on the placement and they said it doesn‟t matter
because you took 25 and you didn't meet the prerequisite to leave 25, so
uh…they sent me back.

During the time of the interview, it was Mack‟s third attempt at Math 25.
Additionally, Buck mentioned similar roadblocks when he attempted to either drop
the developmental math class or change his grading option from a letter grade to
credit/no credit. He expressed extreme frustration and stated that he was given the
runaround. Specifically, he stated,
The problem that I‟m having now is that I want to take Math 25 as credit/no
credit but the date passed. The whole entire process after missing the date is
ridiculous. They told me that I have to see the registrar, professor, counselor
and the dean. The registrar, counselor and professor told me to go all kinds
of places and it‟s so ridiculous. They‟re giving me the runaround. I don‟t
74
need this class for credit. It‟s a waste of my time and money. In fact, I don‟t
need this class.

In summary, majority of the students stated that WW Community College
communicated in their acceptance packet that they needed to take the math
placement test. Additionally, due to this institutional practice, the students placed a
high priority on taking the math placement test. However, as mentioned previously,
majority of the students did not prepare or study for the math placement exam.
Moreover, majority of the students expressed that if the institution offered a math
brush-up course, they would have taken it. Finally, majority of the students
expressed that prior to enrolling in developmental math, they were aware that they
were not receiving college credit. However, some of the students voiced concerns
about the institutional policies that resulted in an inability to take college math after
they were enrolled in developmental math.

Additional Findings
Constituents that Supported or Hindered “Low-Router” Students‟ Choice of Math
Placement
Peers, family and high school and college counselors and teachers were a
prevalent theme that emerged throughout the interviews. These constituents had a
positive and negative influence on the students‟ perceptions and attitudes in high
school and college and their choice of math placement into developmental math.
75
This section is divided into four sections: 1) family, 2) peers, 3) teachers and 4)
counselors.
Family. Students expressed that family played a vital role in helping them
transition into college. Several students mentioned that their parents, particularly
their mothers, encouraged them to attend and prepare for college. For example, Ian
said that his mom wanted him to obtain a college degree because it “looks good on
your resume.” Through experience, Ian‟s mom felt that if she had obtained a college
degree, she would have been able to earn more money. Jade said that her mom
attends WW Community College and helped her complete all of the new student
admissions requirements and encouraged her to attend classes. Finally, Peter said
that from when he was young, his grandma continuously encouraged him to attend
college.
Conversely, four students mentioned that they did not obtain any support
from their family. However, Kawika stated that when he told his parents he was not
going to attend college, they told him the “house rule is if you‟re not going to school,
then you‟re not staying in the house.” This motivated him to attend college. Robert
also expressed that his parents could not support him because they never attended
college. However, he mentioned that he knew he “wanted to do more than what [his]
parents achieved by obtaining a college degree and getting a good paying job.”
Peers. Several students expressed that their peers played a large role in
supporting them through their transition from high school to college. For example,
Ian expressed that during his senior year, he hung out with friends who encouraged
76
each other to be more focused. Additionally, Mack, Peter and Kai expressed that
during their freshman year in college, they had friends who continuously encouraged
them to attend class and complete their homework. Specifically, Mack said, “[My
friends] usually positively [affected my education] because…everyone‟s making
sure that everyone had everything done so that we didn‟t look stupid coming to class
and some didn‟t have it done and some people would.” Kawika expressed that his
peers in his developmental math class held each other accountable and would ensure
that everyone attended class, tutorials and completed their assignments.
Additionally, other students disclosed that their friends served as role models.
For example, Kawika said that his friends taught him how to take notes in class and
he typically “vented” to them when he experienced stress due to school. Kai
expressed that his best friend helped him to complete all of the new student
admissions requirements such as taking the math placement exam and registering for
classes.
Conversely, the students hesitantly admitted that some of their peers
negatively impacted their transition to college by encouraging them to constantly
skip class. For example, Mack, Kai and Peter disclosed that they knew it was wrong
but sometimes they chose to “have fun” over going to class. Peter said, “Skipping
[class] is so tempting, but oooh, I cannot.” Kai said, “The rest of my friends more
were like distractions – like hey, let's go do something and I‟m like ok why not.”
Finally, two students mentioned that they did not have any support from their peers.
77
Teachers. The most prevalent theme that emerged from this study was the
overwhelming positive comments the students made about their high school and
college math teachers. The students expressed that they received tremendous
support from their high school and college math teachers, which aided them in their
transition to college.
High school teachers. Overall, majority of the students expressed that their
high school teacher helped them to prepare for college and taught them well. For
example, three students stated that their high school math teacher challenged them to
think on their own and did not readily give them the answers. Additionally, two
students expressed that their teacher was available to them and provided one-on-one
help. Moreover, two students said that their math teacher taught a class that was
challenging and rigorous. One of the students said that his teacher was very positive
and provided constructive feedback. Finally, another student expressed that his math
teacher maintained good classroom management and “didn‟t let the students run the
class.”
College professors. The students perceived that their developmental math
professors helped them transition into college. For example, three students said that
their professor provided extra help outside of class. Specifically, Kawika expressed
that his professor scheduled “optional problem solving sessions…for whoever wants
to come…and you just talk about whatever you want to talk about, whether it‟s past
stuff or current stuff.” Bean said that her professor was always available before and
after class to answer her questions. Additionally, students said that their
78
developmental math professor was approachable and helpful. Specifically, Bean
said that her math professor helped her to understand the math concepts and provided
good explanations. Finally, the students appreciated that their professors were
organized and followed the syllabus.

Counselors
High school counselor. Majority of the students stated that their high school
counselor did not help them prepare for college or made disparaging comments
about them. In fact, several students stated that they did not know their high school
counselor and could not remember his/her name. For example, Kai said, “[I] never
talked to her. [I] never spoke to her. [I] don‟t even know who it was.” Peter said
that his counselor “ruined everything…and messed my schedule up so bad.”
Additionally, Mack expressed that he expected more help from his high school
counselor. He said that his high school counselor “didn‟t really help much getting
into college unless you really had to hunt them down or had a really good SAT
score.” Moreover, Kai stated that he went to see the counselor once to inquire about
admissions requirements for various colleges that were of interest to him. Kai stated
that during his meeting, the counselor “shot [him] down” and told him that his “GPA
wasn‟t good enough.” Furthermore, Kai said that the counselor did not provide any
alternatives and told him to “shoot lower…and aim for a lesser school.” Finally,
Robert said that his high school did not have counselors. The students had to rely on
their teachers to obtain college information.
79
Only two students expressed that their high school counselor helped them
transition into college. One student disclosed that he initiated the meeting with the
counselor; however, the other student stated that he accidentally stumbled across the
counselor. This student said that he and his friends hung out in the counselor‟s
classroom during his senior year; therefore, he sought her help. In fact, he credits his
high school counselor for helping him get into college.
College counselor. Majority of the students mentioned that they obtained
help and guidance from their college counselors; however, the students did not
perceive them to have a significant impact on their transition into college.
Majority of the students expressed that they met with a college counselor
once or twice to seek advice about classes they needed to take. They also expressed
that regardless of their intended major, the college counselor advised them to take
developmental math or Math 25 because it “keeps your options open.” For example,
Kawika said that “no other option was presented to [him] other than of course lower
math.” Additionally, Jade said that her intended major was criminology; however,
The first time I placed into a…something higher than [Math] 100 and then
this time I placed into [Math] 25. And then the girls told me how I should
have just took the higher class but I guess my counselor, what's his name,
told me that, even if I want to go higher than the class that I was placed in, I'd
have to take [Math] 25 anyways. So that‟s why I took it.

Finally, several students stated that they trusted their college counselor‟s advice and
took developmental math instead of college math. For example, Peter said that he
took developmental math because “he‟s the counselor. He's going to lead the way.”
However, Peter was shocked to find out that he was not going to receive college
80
credit for the developmental math class and stated, “Why didn't [my counselor] put
me in Math 100? I scored high enough.”
In summary, the students‟ families, peers and high school and college math
teachers played a significant role in helping them transition into college. The
students perceived their families and peers to be helpful, supportive and encouraging.
Additionally, they perceived their high school and college teachers to be
approachable, available and helpful. They also perceived that their high school and
college math teachers provided classes that were challenging, rigorous and
organized.
Conversely, the students perceived their high school counselors to be
unavailable and unapproachable. As a result, the students expressed that their high
school counselors did not help them transition into college. Furthermore, the
students mentioned that they met with their college counselors once or twice;
however, the students did not perceive them to have a significant impact on their
transition from high school to college. Finally, their college counselors played a
significant role in their decision to enroll in developmental math rather than college
math.

Summary
This chapter provided a comprehensive account of the perceptions and
attitudes of “low-router” students. The research questions were addressed and five
distinctive themes emerged: 1) student characteristics, 2) path, 3) factors that explain
81
“low-router” students‟ perceptions and attitudes, 4) “low-router” students‟
understanding of their situation and 5) constituents that supported or hindered “low-
router” students‟ choice of math placement, which provided answers to the four
research questions.
In the next chapter, I discuss the findings and its alignment with relevant
literature. Additionally, I include the implications of this research and provide
suggestions to high school and college administrators and practitioners. Finally, I
suggest studies as it relates to “low-router” students.
82
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION, SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Overview of the Problem
The United States was once at the forefront of the best educational systems in
the world, but this status has quickly declined. Fewer students are graduating at the
secondary level, and post-secondary educational attainment has fallen behind other
countries. The Educational Testing Service (2007) indicated that high school
graduation rates peaked at 77% in 1969 and fell 7% over the past 26 years.
Additionally, Hawai`i falls below the national average, where only 68 out of 100
ninth graders graduate from high school on time (NCHEMS, 2009). Clearly, this
impacts the going rate of students who enter college in Hawai`i.
The literature shows that there is a large percentage of students attending
college who are under-prepared. As a result, they are required to take a
remedial/developmental course in one or more subjects. Enrollment in many
remedial/developmental courses lowers the chances of graduation and increases the
amount of time it takes to obtain a degree (Attewell et. al., 2006). Additionally,
students enrolled in remedial/developmental coursework are academically under-
prepared and regarded as a major risk factor, in terms of retention, at post-secondary
institutions. In Hawai`i, 50.2% of students who enter University of Hawai`i
Community Colleges are placed in remedial or developmental math courses, and
45.5% are enrolled in remedial/developmental English (UHRIO, 2008). This is
83
higher than the national average, where 41% of the students in post-secondary
education enroll in remedial coursework (Adelman, 2004).
Included in the aforementioned figures are those students who are prepared to
take college-level courses but chose to begin their college career at the
remedial/developmental level. There are many concerns for students who choose
such a path because it extends their time-to-degree and causes them to consume more
personal resources to pay for the non-credit-bearing course(s), which may lead to
early drop-out.
As a result, this research study examined the perceptions and attitudes of
“low-router” students in developmental math and served two central purposes.
Specifically, this study identified the “low-router” students at WW Community
College and examined the internal and external factors that contributed to their
choice of placement. This study addressed the following questions:
1. Why did these students choose to take developmental math versus college
math?
2. What are the perceptions and attitudes of "low-router" students?
3. How do students understand their situation, and what institutional
practices influence their perceptions?
The results of this study will help to close the educational pipeline gap and aid
administrators, at the high school and college levels, as they develop policies and
practices to help these students better prepare for and transition into college.
84
I used qualitative methodology to uncover the “low-router” students‟
demographics and the internal and external factors that influenced their choice to
enroll in remedial/developmental math. The “low-router” students a short pre-
interview questionnaire followed by a semi-structured interview, which revealed
their demographics and internal and external factors that contributed to their choice
of placement. Overall, the results of this study indicated similarities and differences
to the existing literature. Furthermore, there are additional findings that add to the
body of literature.

Summary of the Results
The first theme was characteristics of “low-router” students. Overall, the
outcome of this study revealed that the “low-router” students at WW Community
College were very ethnically diverse. Most of them were traditional college students
who were born and raised on the island of Oahu and attended high school on the
Windward side. Additionally, most of the students expressed that their involvement
in extra-curricular activities made a positive impact on their high school experience.
All but one of the students stated that they took Algebra II in high school and passed
with an “A” or “B,” and they graduated with an overall GPA that ranged from a 2.8
to 3.389. Finally, the students attended WW Community College because the
campus was within close proximity to their home, and they planned to transfer to
another institution sometime in the near future.
85
The first research question addressed the path these students took and
provided reasons behind the students‟ choice of placement into developmental math.
Overall, although students were aware that they needed to take the math placement
test, none of them prepared or studied for it. However, they all obtained a math
placement score that was high enough to enroll in college math but none of them
chose this path. Additionally, their choice of placement rested on advice from
various sources, including: 1) the math placement proctor, 2) their college counselor
or 3) they made their own choice without consulting anyone. Moreover, the findings
were mixed where if they could do it all over again, some students would take the
same path while others would have chosen to enroll in college math. However, most
of the students expressed that if other students were placed in the same situation,
their advice to these students would rest on their readiness to take college math over
developmental math.
The second research question addressed the students‟ perceptions and
attitudes in high school and college and their choice of math placement into
developmental math. Overall, the students expressed that they were slackers in high
school; however, sometime during their high school career, they realized that they
wanted to attend college and became more serious about studying and obtaining
good grades. Furthermore, the developmental math classes‟ lack of oversight and
support, evening schedule and the fact that it mimicked high school contributed to a
rough transition into college for these students. Finally, although the students spoke
highly of their developmental math professors and expressed that they had a positive
86
experience, they continued to feel a sense of stigma and inferiority to students who
enrolled in college math.
The third research question involved how the students understood their
situation and what institutional practices influenced their perceptions. Majority of
the students stated they were informed, via their WW Community College
acceptance packet, that they needed to take the math placement test and they placed a
high priority on taking the math placement test. Moreover, majority of the students
expressed that they would have taken a math brush-up course if one had been
available. Finally, majority of the students expressed that prior to enrolling in
developmental math, they were aware that they would not receive college credit.
However, some of the students voiced concerns about the institutional policies that
resulted in an inability to take college math after they were enrolled in
developmental math.
Finally, the last section addressed the constituents that supported or hindered
“low-router” students‟ choice of math placement. Overall, peers, family and
teachers made a tremendous impact on these students and supported them in their
decision to persist in high school and attend college. Conversely, the students‟ high
school counselors and some of their peers had a negative impact on their transition
into college. Their high school counselors were unavailable and unapproachable.
Additionally, some of their college peers created distractions, such as encouraging
them to skip class. Finally, the college counselors had the greatest impact on the
students‟ decision to enroll in developmental math rather than college math;
87
however, none of the other constituents mentioned previously had any impact on
their decision to enroll in developmental math.

Connection to Prior Research
To my knowledge, this study is the only study that examines the perceptions
and attitudes of “low-router” students. However, in 2004, Maxwell, Hagedorn,
Cypers, Lester and Moon presented a related study on Fragmentary Cohorts, Full
Cohorts, and the Placement/Course Level Match in Remedial Mathematics Courses
among Urban Community College Students. This longitudinal study examined the
placement test/course level match, which is the match between the outcome of the
placement test and the level of the course-taking. Subsequently, they looked at the
success rate of each group of students and examined the social characteristics of
these students. However, they did not explore the perceptions and attitudes of these
students and the factors that contributed to their choice of placement. Therefore, this
section will provide a discussion and analysis of the findings for each theme and
research question and is linked to the existing literature.
The next section is broken down by the first theme, student characteristics, is
followed by the three research questions and ends with the additional findings. The
summary of results is linked to the existing literature.

88
Student Characteristics
There is no literature on the characteristics of “low-router” students;
however, there are several studies that discuss the disproportionate number of
minorities and socio-economically disadvantaged students who are represented in
post-secondary remedial education (Attewell et. al., 2006; Kreysa, 2006). Similarly,
in this study, all but two of the students disclosed that they were minorities and more
than half of the students disclosed that they came from a low-socioeconomic
background.
Additionally, Adelman (2004) suggested that African-Americans and Latinos
were most represented in remedial course-taking. Specifically, the literature shows
that it is more prevalent for African-American and Hispanic students to enroll in
remedial mathematics than White students (Hagedorn, Siadet, Fogel, Nora and
Pascarella, 1999). However, another study revealed that Native Hawaiian and
Filipino students were the highest population of students enrolled in
remedial/developmental education in Hawai`i (WPGC, 2007). Therefore, it was not
surprising to find that majority of the “low-router” students were Native Hawaiian
and Filipino rather than African-American and Hispanic.
Furthermore, the Hawai`i Fall 2003 date showed that the most prevalent age
group enrolled in remedial or developmental coursework were 18 or 19-year-old
students (WPGC, 2007). Similarly, the literature supports the findings in this study,
where all but one of the students were 18 to 19 years of age.
89
Another study suggests that low-income and minority students are less likely
to enroll in rigorous or college preparatory courses in high school, which may
increase the likelihood that they will be required to take one or more remedial
courses in college (Education Trust, 1999). Conversely, it was very clear that all
minority students in this study enrolled in Algebra II in high school and some
continued to take a higher math during their senior year.
Moreover, a study conducted by Weissman, Silk and Bulakowski (1997)
suggests that more students enrolled only in remedial math successfully completed
the course compared to enrollment in any other remedial course(s). Additionally,
Lesik (2007) suggests that participation in developmental math has a positive impact
on student retention. Therefore, the literature supported the findings in this study
where majority of the students continued to persist and planned to transfer to a four-
year institution in the near future.
Finally, in a multi-institutional study conducted by Merchant (1996), students
said, “Parents…pushed local colleges or stated universities that were less selective,
less competitive, less expensive, and closer to home” (p. 140). This supports the
findings in this study where students chose to attend WW Community College due to
the low cost and close proximity to home; however, only some disclosed that their
parents encouraged them to do so.
90
Research question #1: Why did these students choose to take developmental math
versus college math?
The finding of the literature in Chapter Two shows a gap in the information
that students obtain in regards to preparing for and transitioning into college.
Specifically, middle and low-income students acquire little knowledge in terms of
what is required to attend college and how to apply for college (Rosenbaum, 2001).
Specifically, the literature shows that students are found to have little knowledge
about the content of the placement exams, score poorly, and are then placed into
remedial/developmental education (Kirst and Bracco, 1996).
The literature somewhat supported the findings of this study, where students
were not aware of the contents of the placement exam and did not prepare or study
for it. However, the literature shows that these students scored poorly on the exam,
which is contrary to the findings of this study. The students received a decent score
on the math placement exam, which was high enough to enroll in college math, but
they expressed that they were unaware of their choices. Likewise, Kirst and Bracco
(1996) found that these tests could be viewed as barriers and force students to enroll
in such courses. Despite the fact that all but one student successfully completed
Algebra II in high school, it was very apparent during the interviews for this study
that the math placement test was viewed as a barrier for these students, where they
all enrolled in developmental math based on their math placement score. Moreover,
additional findings from this study revealed that the students received advice from
various sources to take developmental math, which included the proctor at the testing
91
center, a college counselor or they made an isolated decision without consulting
anyone. Had the advice that the students received been more centralized, more
students may have opted to take college math rather than developmental math.

Research question #2: What are the perceptions and attitudes of "low-router"
students?
The students in Higbee‟s (2007) study indicated that high school does not
provide adequate preparation for college. Additionally, the students in Higbee‟s
(2007) study expressed that preparation for college was an individual choice.
Similarly, the students interviewed in this study expressed that their transition from
high school to college did not meet their expectations and they felt unprepared for
college. The students also expressed that it was their decision to be “slackers” in
high school and for some, they did not prepare for college until their junior or senior
year. Had they come to this realization earlier in their high school career, they may
have been better prepared for college and chosen to take college math rather than
developmental math.
Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the literature as to how students
perceived their situation in the remedial/developmental class. A study conducted by
Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico (1997) revealed that overall, the students
had a negative perception of the developmental course at their institution and felt it
interfered with their studies. Moreover, the students wanted to exit the
developmental class right away and viewed the class as a waste of time and an
92
embarrassment. Conversely, students in Lundell, Beach and Jung‟s (2007) study
made many positive comments about the smaller class size, teachers, advisors and
student services. Furthermore, they voiced that the developmental program gave
them a second chance and opportunity, and they appreciated the academic
preparation provided by the developmental program.
The students of this study shared similar sentiments to the students of
Lundell, Beach and Jung‟s (2007) study. They unanimously expressed that they had
a positive experience in developmental math and attributed their experiences to their
college math professors. Additionally, one of the students in Higbee and Siaka‟s
(2005) study stated, “I believe that GC is a good starting foundation for many
students. Ever since I‟ve been here the knowledge that I‟ve obtained has been more
than I ever expected. Not only are the classes taught differently but in ways where it
can somehow relate” (p. 122). Similarly, Kawika expressed that the developmental
math class provided a good foundation for the subsequent college math courses that
he successfully completed.
Moreover, there is a small body of literature that discusses stigma in
remedial/developmental education (Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico,
1997; Pedalty, 2001; Lundell, Beach and Jung, 2007; Higbee and Siaka, 2005) and
suggests that stigma continues to occur. For example, in a study conducted by
Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico (1997), the students felt “discouraged by
developmental studies classes and continued to feel stupid because of their
placement in the courses” (p. 6). Similarly, the students in Pedalty‟s study believed
93
that their peers in other programs and people in the wider community negatively
viewed the students in developmental education. Moreover, Lundell, Beach and
Jung (2007) found that the students in the developmental education program felt
marginalized as members of such a program, which was a “school for dummies” (p.
80). Finally, Higbee and Siaka (2005) found that the students felt they were part of a
lower class at the university and other students looked down on them.
Likewise, the literature supported the findings of this study, where the
students expressed a sense of stigma and felt they were inferior to students enrolled
in college math. Although they did not use the exact words as the other students in
the aforementioned studies, a similar theme arose where the students of this study
believed they were not as smart as their peers and made comments such as, “I guess
they would say that I‟m um, not as up-to-speed as they are, or maybe I struggle with
math” or “Other students probably think I‟m low. Like…ughl, look, he[„s] not even
getting college credit for his math…How did you score so low if you got out of high
school.” Other students believed that students enrolled in college math thought
“…[students in developmental math] just can‟t grasp the concept of math” or that
they were perceived as “slackers or the kids who aren‟t taking it serious…or not
going to make it.” Finally one student bluntly stated, “I think they just look at us as
not as smart as them.”

94
Research question #3: How do students understand their situation, and what
institutional practices influence their perceptions?
Rosenbaum (2001) suggests that middle and low-income students acquire
little knowledge in terms of what is required to attend college and how to apply for
college (Rosenbaum, 2001). Furthermore, Carranza (2007) found that students seem
to be misinformed or lack pertinent information about college requirements.
Contrary to the findings of the literature, the students of this study seemed to be
prepared for college, as they all took Algebra II in high school; however, none of
them chose to enroll in college math. Furthermore, the students were aware that they
needed to take the math placement test as one of the admissions requirements for
college.
Additionally, in a study conducted by Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002),
students in developmental education voiced that they “often go for several months, a
full semester, or even a full year without knowing that their remedial courses are not
counting towards a degree” (p. 260). Conversely, the students interviewed for this
study did not share the same sentiments as the students of Deil-Amen and
Rosenbaum‟s (2002) study. Majority of the students expressed that prior to enrolling
in developmental math, they were aware that they would not receive college credit;
however, they continued to enroll in developmental math.
Furthermore, in a study conducted by the National Center for Education
Statistics (1996), approximately two-thirds of campuses nationally restrict
enrollment to some classes until remediation is complete. This also holds true for
95
WW Community College, where students of the study disclosed that due to such
restrictions, they were unable to take college math after they were enrolled in
developmental math.
Finally, the literature suggests that more non-traditional students than
traditional students need a math “brush-up” course to sharpen their math skills before
entering the higher education mainstream; therefore, they are more likely to enroll in
remedial/developmental math (NCCP, 1998 and Carlos, J. et. al., 2006). In contrast,
majority of the students in this study, who are traditional-aged college students,
expressed that they used the developmental math course as a “brush-up” course. In
addition, they expressed that if the institution offered a short math brush-up course,
they would have taken it.

Constituents that Supported or Hindered Low Router Students‟ Choice of Math
Placement
Several studies indicated that family played an integral role in helping the
student transition into college (Merchant, 1996; Carranza, 2007; Myers, 1999;
Dominick, Stevens, and Smith, 2007; and Caniglia and Duranczyk, 1999). In
particular, the students‟ parents impacted their college of choice and informed them
of college course requirements (Merchant, 1996), fostered academic development by
being disciplinarians, instructors and motivators (Myers, 1999) and provided overall
support, which influenced their academic success (Carranza, 2007). The students in
this study confirmed that their family, particularly their mothers, played a vital role
96
in helping them transition into college by encouraging them to attend college and
aiding them to complete all admissions requirements.
Additionally, other researchers suggest that friends and peers are another
source of support for students in preparation for post-secondary education and
success in college (Dominick, Stevens and Smith, 2007; Carranza, 2007; Martinez
and Klopott, 2003). Specifically, they suggest that students served as role models for
other students and expressed how they learned from them (Carranza, 2007). In
addition, Martinez and Klopott (2003) believe that a strong social support network is
a way for students to access college preparatory information. Similar to the
literature, the students of this study expressed that their peers helped them
successfully transition into college by being role models, encouraged them to be
more focused in high school and college, encouraged them to attend classes and
helped them to complete their assignments.
Moreover, several studies suggest that teacher support had a positive impact
on the students‟ college decisions (Valeri-Gold, Deming, Mangram and Errico, 1997;
Caniglia and Duranczyk, 1999; Higbee and Siaka, 2005) and students who interacted
with their teachers had a positive effect on retention (Tinto, Russo, and Stephanie,
1994; Astin, 1993). Specifically, in a study conducted by Caniglia and Duranczyk
(1999), students praised teachers who helped them to build their confidence by
spending time with them on a personal level and appreciated instructors who showed
a lot of enthusiasm and provided clear and multiple explanations. The findings of
this study are aligned with the literature, where the students had overwhelmingly
97
positive comments about their high school and college math teachers and they
expressed that they were approachable, available and helpful. Furthermore, the
students expressed that their high school and college math teachers conducted classes
that were challenging, rigorous and organized.
In spite of the positive support received from their peers, family and teachers,
none of the students expressed that these constituents played a part in their decision
to enroll in developmental math rather than college math.
High school counselors play a vital role in disseminating information and
preparing students for college, which can have a positive impact on improving
students‟ academic outcomes. Furthermore, several studies have determined a
positive relationship between counselors and several student outputs such as
academic outcomes (Lapan, Gysbers and Sun, 1997; Lee, 1993; Whiston and Sexton,
1998), educational planning (Peterson, Long and Billups, 1999), career maturity
(Luzzo and Pierce, 1996) and career decision-making (Hughey, Lapan and Gysbers,
1993), as well as student learning and achievement (Jacques and Brorsen, 2002).
However, the literature shows that nationally, there is a low number of counselors
per student at the high school level (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). As a
result, these counselors are not able to spend much of their time on post-secondary
issues (Sink and Stroh, 2003; Lapan, Brigman and Campbell, 2003; Boutwell and
Myrick, 1992; Lapan, Gysbers and Sun, 1997; Lapan, Gysbers and Petroski, 2001;
Webb, Brigman and Campbell, 2005). Additionally, several studies suggest that
counselors lack the knowledge to properly assist students in making sound decisions
98
regarding college choices (Orfield and Paul, 1994; Rosenbaum, 2001) or withhold
the information for various reasons (Rosenbaum, Miller and Krei, 1996). Finally, a
review of the literature shows that counselors serve as gatekeepers to post-secondary
information and fail to communicate to students the level of high school achievement
needed to succeed in college (Rosenbaum, 2001) or course-taking requirements of
selective colleges and financial aid opportunities (Orfield and Paul, 1994), which
results in the student being under-prepared for college. Similarly, the students of this
study confirmed that their high school counselors were unavailable and
unapproachable and majority of the students expressed that they never met with their
high school counselor. As a result, the students did not obtain the help needed to
prepare and transition into college, which may have contributed to the students‟
choice of math placement.
Several studies suggest that college counselors heavily impacted students‟
decisions to enroll in remedial/developmental education. For example, Kreysa
(2006) found that academic advisors encouraged students to enroll in remedial
courses if their past academic work indicated that they needed to catch up
academically with their peers. Additionally, Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002)
found that college counselors felt that they did not want to move students to college
level courses too quickly, for it may be too difficult for them to handle. Likewise,
the students in this study expressed that their college counselor encouraged them to
take developmental math rather than college math because it “keeps your options
open.” Furthermore, one of the students in the study went through the same
99
experience as the student in Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum‟s (2002) study, where he
was unaware that he did not receive college credit for the developmental math class
and wondered why his college counselor did not explain this to him.
In summary, most of the findings of this study correlated with the existing
literature. Despite the fact that majority of the “low-router” students of this study
were at a huge disadvantage because they came from a minority and low socio-
economic background, they successfully matriculated into college and were prepared
to take college math; however, they all chose to enroll in developmental math.
Additionally, peers, family and teachers positively impacted the students‟ ability to
successfully transition into college but their choice to take developmental math
rested on the proctor at the testing center, a college counselor or they made an
isolated decision. Moreover, the students expressed that they were “slackers” in high
school and prepared for college late in their high school career, which may have
contributed to their difficult transition into college and their decision to enroll in
developmental math rather than college math. Finally, there are some institutional
policies that served as barriers for students to move from developmental math to
college math.

Implications for Policy and Practice
There are several essential recommendations developed from this study.
These recommendations are much needed to improve the existing policy and practice
to support and encourage “low-router” students to prepare for college, transition into
100
college and meet the Hawai„i Department of Education‟s (2008) goal to decrease the
number of Hawai`i high school graduates enrolled in remedial education. Therefore,
based on the findings of this research and existing literature, high school and college
officials should consider the following:
1. High Schools
a. It is recommended that high school administrators consider increasing
the amount of high school counselors at each school to decrease the
student to counselor ratio and allocate at least one position at their
high school to be a college/career counselor. As the students
indicated in this study, most of them saw their high school counselors
once or twice throughout their entire high school career and viewed
them as unavailable and unapproachable. As the literature review in
chapter two indicated, nationally, there is a low number of counselors
per student at the high school level (U.S. Department of Education,
2004) and as a result, they are unable to spend much of their time on
post-secondary issues (Sink and Stroh, 2003; Lapan, Brigman and
Campbell, 2003; Boutwell and Myrick, 1992; Lapan, Gysbers and
Sun, 1997; Lapan, Gysbers and Petroski, 2001; Webb, Brigman and
Campbell, 2005). Thus, increasing the amount of high school
counselors at each high school may close the gap, where they will be
able to spend more time on post-secondary issues.
101
b. It is recommended that all high school counselors obtain the requisite
knowledge, through mandatory training, in order to effectively help
students prepare for and transition into college. In this study, one of
the students indicated that his counselor “ruined everything…and
messed [his] schedule up so bad.” This could be due to the high
school counselor‟s lack of knowledge to properly assist students in
making sound decisions regarding college choices on post-secondary
issues as indicated in the literature review in Chapter Two (Orfield
and Paul, 1993; Rosenbaum, 2001).
c. It is recommended that high school counselors make a concerted
effort to reach out to students, especially minority and low-SES
students, for the findings in this study showed that majority of the
“low-router” students were from an ethnic minority and low-SES
background. This is also consistent with the literature where low-
income students are not well informed about the college admission
process (Orfield and Paul, 1993).
d. It is recommended that high schools make a concerted effort to reach
out to students during their freshman year in high school, for the
students in this study expressed that their college preparation began
during their junior or senior year. For some students, this is too late.
They may not have taken the requisite college courses and may be
under-prepared for college.
102
2. Colleges and Universities
a. Linked to recommendation #1.b., college counselors should consider
partnering with the high school counselors to educate them about
college issues. Kirst and Bracco (1996) contend that a joint effort
between K-12 and post-secondary systems is a key factor in helping
under-represented students successfully prepare and transition into
college by increasing their college knowledge of placement tests,
curricular requirements, financial aid, admission procedures and
selection criteria. Majority of the “low-router” students of this study
were minorities and/or from a low-socioeconomic background.
Therefore, this partnership could greatly increase the students‟ college
knowledge and better prepare them to transition into a post-secondary
institution.
b. It is recommended that colleges and universities consider
implementing mandatory advising for all incoming students in order
to ensure that the students receive consistent advising and that the
information disseminated is standardized. As students indicated in
this study, they obtained course-taking advice from various sources,
to include the college math proctor, college counselors or they made
their own decision without seeking advice. As Kirst and Bracco
(1996) contend, messages sent to students should be simple, clear and
consistent to enhance the college knowledge of students who are
103
transitioning into a post-secondary institution. This will alleviate the
problem of students obtaining advice to enroll in developmental math
instead of college math from the proctor at the math placement center,
who may be providing unclear and inconsistent messages.
c. It is recommended that colleges and universities provide educational
programs for parents to increase their college knowledge in order to
close the gap of students taking remedial/developmental math when
eligible to take college math. Many students of this study voiced that
their parents heavily influenced their decision to prepare for and
transition into college. In fact, Jade stated that her mom helped her
complete all of the new student admissions requirements. Similarly,
in the review of the literature in Chapter Two, Merchant (1996) found
that parents felt they were responsible for helping their child fill out
admission application forms and informing them about college course
requirements.
d. It is recommended that colleges and universities consider offering a
mandatory math “brush-up” course for “low-router” students prior to
their enrollment in college math. All but one of the students in this
study indicated that they did not study or prepare for the math
placement test; however, they all took college Algebra during high
school. Additionally, most of the students indicated that if WW
Community College offered a math brush-up course, they would have
104
enrolled in it. Thus, if these students studied or prepared for the math
placement test, they may have obtained a higher score which would
have enabled them to take a higher math, such as Calculus, which is a
requirement for many majors of interest to these students.
3. Board of Education
a. Related to recommendation #1.b., it is recommended that the Board of
Education design and implement a policy for all high school
counselors to obtain current knowledge on preparing students for and
transitioning them into college and maintain on-going training in this
area.
4. University of Hawai`i System
a. It is recommended that the administrators make the Compass Math
placement test matrix clearer for the students. Currently, the matrix is
confusing and misleading.
5. State Government
a. Related to recommendation #1.a., it is recommended that legislators
increase the amount of funding allocated to the Department of
Education (DOE) to enable them to hire more high school counselors.
As the U.S. Department of Education (2004) indicated, one of the
biggest challenges that high school counselors face is the low number
of counselors per student at the high school level. The additional
funding will also go towards the mandatory training for the high
105
school counselors as well as the mandatory advising and training for
the students.
The next section will provide recommendations for future research.

Implications for Future Research
The findings of this study provided a great deal of insight and deep,
descriptive accounts of the perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students
enrolled in developmental math. However, in general, there are very few studies on
the perceptions and attitudes of students in remedial/developmental education and
fewer studies on “low-router” students in developmental math. Therefore, for future
research, it is first recommended that this study be expanded to be more
generalizable. This study was confined to a single public community college;
however, future studies can include the other six community colleges in the state of
Hawai`i. Furthermore, it is recommended that this study be expanded nationally to
compare the outcomes of this study to another similar institution within the
continental United States.
Secondly, this study can be expanded to a longitudinal study to compare the
retention rates of “low-router” students to students who chose the recommended path
of enrolling in college math. This future study can further examine whether or not
enrolling in developmental math, despite the adversities that the students of this
study encountered, aided or hindered their ability to succeed in college.
106
Thirdly, it is recommended that future studies look into the perceptions and
attitudes of high school counselors and the impact they have on “low-router”
students, for it is known that high school counselors have a great impact on how well
students prepare and transition into college.
Fourthly, it is recommended that a future study, similar to Maxwell,
Hagedorn, Cypers, Lester and Moon‟s (2004) study, be conducted in Hawai`i to
further examine the math placement/course level match to uncover the overall
characteristics of “low-router,” “middle-router” and “high-router” students.
Furthermore, this study can examine these students‟ course-taking patterns and their
success rate due to their respective choices.
Finally, it is recommended that a future study be conducted on the
perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students who withdrew from college. It
would be interesting to uncover the internal and external factors that impacted their
decision to drop-out of college and to see if they have similar perceptions and
attitudes as the “low-router” students who persisted in college. It is important to
understand these students‟ perspectives in order to retain and graduate students in
similar situations.

Conclusion
In recent years, the United States has placed a high priority on closing the
leaky educational pipeline by providing more resources to the K-12 and higher
education systems in hopes of producing more educated citizens. Furthermore,
107
various states have made a concerted effort to align policies between the high school
and college levels, which will enable all students to meet higher standards and move
easily from one level to the next. However, more high school graduates are under-
prepared for college, which results in a high remediation rate, especially for low-
income and minority students. The students in Hawai`i are no different. While the
Department of Education (DOE) set one of its goals to decrease the number of
Hawai`i high school graduates enrolled in remedial education by June 30, 2011,
there continues to be a large population of students who enroll in
remedial/developmental courses in college. Therefore, this study aimed to
understand the characteristics of “low-router” students and the internal and external
factors that contributed to their choice of placement. Although the population of this
study was small and not generalizable, the findings of this study will enable high
school and college administrators to chip away at this massive leaky pipeline issue
by providing more support to low-income and minority students who have the ability
to enroll in college math but choose the remedial/developmental route.
108
REFERENCES
Achieve (2008a). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a
world-class education. Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from
http://achieve.org/BenchmarkingforSuccess

Achieve (2008b). Achieve data profile: Hawai`i. Retrieved on January 9, 2009 from
http://www.achieve.org/Hawaii

Achieve (2008c). The American Diploma Project Creating a High School Diploma
that Counts: The National Context. Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from
http://achieve.org/BenchmarkingforSuccess.

ACT (2004). ACT national data release. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
Office of Vocational and Adult Education.

Adelman, C. (2005). Educational “anticipations” of traditional age community
college students: A prolegomena to any future accountability indicators.
Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 12(1), 93-107.

Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in
postsecondary education, 1972-2000. Institute of Education Science,
Washington, D.C.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance,
Patterns, and Bachelor‟s Degree Attainment. U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Alexander, K.L., Pallas, A., and Holupka, S. (1987). Social Background and
Academic Determinants of Two-Year Versus Four-Year College Attendance:
Evidence From Two Cohorts a Decade Apart. American Journal of
Education, 96(1), 56-80.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., and Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924.

109
Bahr, R. (2009). Preparing the underprepared: An analysis of racial disparities in
postsecondary mathematics remediation. Accepted for the Journal of Higher
Education.

Bahr, R. (2008). Does mathematics remediation work? A comparative analysis of
academic attainment among community college students. Research in
Higher Education, 49(4), 420-450.

Bahr, P. R. (2007a). Double jeopardy: testing the effects of multiple basic skill
deficiencies on successful remediation. Research in Higher Education,
48(6), 695-725.

Bahr, P. R. (2007b). The Matthew Effect in Postsecondary Remediation: Testing the
Efficacy of Remediation across Varying Depths and Breadths of Under-
Preparation.

Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., and Leinback, T. (2005). Graduation rates, student goals,
and measuring community college effectiveness (CCRC Brief Number 28).
New York: Columbia University, Community College Research Center.

Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W. and Cho, S.W. (2008). Referral, enrollment, and completion
in developmental education sequence in community colleges [CCRC
Working Paper No. 15]. Community College Research Center: Columbia
University.

Beach, R., Lundell, D. B., and Jung, H. J. (2002). Developmental College Students‟
Negotiation of Social Practices Between Peer, Family, Workplace, and
University Worlds. In D. B. Lundell and J. L. Higbee (eds.), Exploring
Urban Literacy and Developmental Education. Minneapolis: Center for
Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College,
University of Minnesota, 2002. Retrieved on January 16, 2009 from
http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/crdeul

Bettinger, E., and Long, B. (2007). Institutional responses to reduce inequalities in
college outcomes: Remedial and developmental courses in higher education.
In S. Dickert-Conlin and R. Rubenstein, (Eds.) Economic Inequality and
Higher Education: Access, Persistence and Success. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation Press.

Bettinger, E., and Long, B. (2005). Addressing the needs of under-prepared college
students: Does college remediation work? (NBER Working Paper No.
11325). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
110
Bettinger, E. and Long B. T. (2004). Shape up or ship out: The effects of
remediation on students at four-year colleges (Working Paper No. 10369).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Blanco, C. (2005). Early Commitment Financial Aid Programs: Promises, Practices
and Policies. Retrieved November 16, 2008 from
http://www.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/earlycommitment.pdf

Boutwell, D. and Myrick, R. (1992). The go for it club. Elementary School
Guidance and Counseling, 27(1): 65-72.

Boylan, H. and Saxon, P. (1999a). What works in remediation: Lessons from 30
years of research. Prepared for the League for Innovation in the Community
College. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from
http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/reserve_reading/what_works.htm

Boylan, H. and Saxon, P. (1999b). Outcomes of remediation. National Center for
Developmental Education, Boone, North Carolina.

Brewer, D. J., Hentschke, G. C., and Eide, E. R. (2008). The role of economics in
education policy research. In H. F. Ladd and E. B. Fiske (Eds.) Handbook of
research in education finance and policy. New York: Routledge, p. 23-41.

Bueschel, A. (1996). “The missing link. The role of community colleges in the
transition between high school and college.” In Kirst, M. and Venezia, A.,
From High School to College. Improving opportunities for success in
postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burley, A., Cejda, B., and Butner, B. (2001). Dropout and stopout patterns among
developmental education students in Texas Community Colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 767-782.

Cabrera, A. F., and La Nasa, S. M. (2000a). On the path to college: Three critical
tasks facing America‟s disadvantaged. University Park, PA: The
Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education.

Cabrera, A. F., and La Nasa, S. M. (2000b). Understanding the college choice
process. In A.F. Cabrera, and S.M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the
college choice of disadvantaged students: New directions for institutional
research, 107, 5-22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
111
Caniglia, J. and Duranczyk, I. M. (1999). Understanding mathematics backwards: A
qualitative analysis of students' mathematical beliefs through
autobiographies. In J. L. Higbee and P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The Expanding
Role of Developmental Education. Auburn, CA: National Association for
Developmental Education.

Carlos, J.; Peter Crosta, C.; Bailey, T. and Jenkins, D. (2006). Stepping Stones to a
Degree: The Impact of Enrollment Pathways and Milestones on Older
Community College Student Outcomes. Community College Research
Center, 32, 1-6.

Carnevale, A. P. (2008). College For All? Change, 40(1), 23-29.

Carnevale, A. P., and Desrochers, D. M. (2002). The missing middle: Aligning
education and the knowledge economy. Paper presented at the Preparing
America.

Carranza, C. (2007). Student perceptions of the factors that influence academic
success. In D. B. Lundell, J. L. Higbee, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Student
standpoints about access programs in higher education. Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy,
General College, University of Minnesota, Monograph Series #6., p. 93-113.

Casazza, M. E. (1999). Who Are We and Where Did We Come From? Journal of
Developmental Education, 23(1), 2–4, 6–7.

Clark, B. 1960. The Open Door College. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cohn, E. and Geske, T. (1990). The economics of education. New York: Pergamon
Press.

Cole, R. P., Goetz, E. T., and Wilson, V. (2000). Epistemological Beliefs of
Underprepared College Students. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
31(1), 60–72.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crowe, E. (1998). Statewide remedial education policies - State strategies that
support successful student transitions from secondary to postsecondary
education. Denver: SHEEO and ACT Inc.

112
Deil-Amen, R., and Rosenbaum, J. (2002). The unintended consequences of stigma-
free remediation. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 249-268.

Dominick, V., Stevens, C., Smith, M. (2007). Transition from high school to
college: a qualitative study of developmental students. In D. B. Lundell, J. L.
Higbee, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Student standpoints about access
programs in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University
of Minnesota, Monograph Series #6, p. 21-30.

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts,
and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York
Press.

Duranczyk, I. M. and Higbee, J. L (2006). Developmental Mathematics in 4-Year
Institutions: Denying Access. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(1),
22-31.

Easterling, D., Douglas, N., Patten, J. E., and Krile, D. J. (1998). Patterns of
progress: Student persistence isn‟t always where you expect it. Dayton, OH:
Sinclair Community College, Office of Institutional Planning and Research.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 421 185).

Education Trust (2003). A new core curriculum for all: Aiming high for other
people‟s children. Thinking K-16. Washington D.C.: Educational Trust.

Education Trust (1999). Ticket to nowhere: The gap between leaving high school
and entering college and high performance jobs. Thinking K-16.
Washington, D.C.: Educational Trust.

Engle, J. and Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access. The Pell
Institute. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from: www.coenet.us/files/files-
Moving_Beyond_Access_2008.pdf.

Ewell, P. T., Jones, D. M., and Kelly, P. J. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching
the educational pipeline. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21
st
century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
113
Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, S., and Pollock, E. (2005).
Reassessing the U.S. international mathematics performance: New Findings
from the 2004 TIMSS and PISA. American Institutes for Research.
Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from:
www.air.org/news/documents/TIMSS_PISA%2b0math%20study.pdf

Gotlieb, P. D. and Fogarty, M. (2003). Educational Attainment and Metropolitan
Growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 17(4), 325-336.

Greene, J. and Foster, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college
readiness rates in the United States. Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic
Information, Education Working Paper, no. 3.

Grimes, S. K. and David, K. C. (1999). Underprepared community college students:
Implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College
Review, 27(2), p. 73-92.

Hadden, C. (2000). The ironies of mandatory placement. Research and Practice,
24, 823-838.

Hagedorn, L., Siadet, M. V., Fogel, S., Nora, A. and Pascarella, E. (1999). Success
in college mathematics: comparisons between remedial and nonremedial
first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 261-284.

Hawai„i Department of Education (DOE) (2008). Department of Education
Strategic Plan: July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011. Retrieved on May 29, 2008
from: http://doe.k12.hi.us/curriculum/strategicplan.pdf

Hawai`i Workforce Informer. (2007). Hawai`i‟s hot 50 jobs. Honolulu, HI: State of
Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Higbee, J. L. (2007). Student perspectives on college readiness. In D. B. Lundell, J.
L. Higbee, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), Student standpoints about access
programs in higher education. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on
Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General College, University
of Minnesota, Monograph Series #6., p. 5-20.

114
Higbee, J. L., and Siaka, K. (2005). Students‟ assessment of their multicultural
experiences in the General College: A pilot study. In J. L. Higbee, D. B.
Lundell, and D. R. Arendale (Eds.), The General College vision: Integrating
intellectual growth, multicultural perspectives, and student development (pp.
111-129). Retrieved April 19, 2009, from the University of Minnesota,
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy
http://www.education.umn.edu/crdeul

Holzer, H. and Lerman, R. (2009). The future of middle-skill jobs. Washington,
D.C.: Brookings. Retrieve on May 29, 2009 from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/02_middle_skill_job
s_holzer/02_middle_skill_jobs_holzer.pdf

Horn, L. and Berger, R. (2004). College Persistence on the Rise? Changes in 5-
Year Degree Completion and Post-Secondary Persistence Rates Between
1994 and 2000. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.

Horn, L., and Kojaku, L. K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the
persistence path through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of
undergraduates 3 years after entering 4-year institutions. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES 2001163). Retrieved
November 24, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001163.pdf

Horn, L., and Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary
education institutions: 2003-04: With a special analysis of community college
students (NCES 2006-184). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Hughey, K. F., Lapan, R. T., and Gysbers, N. C. (1993). Evaluating a high school
guidance-language arts career unit: A qualitative approach. The School
Counselor, 41, 96-101.

Ignash, J. (1997). Who should provide postsecondary remedial/developmental
education? In J. Ignash, ed. Implementing Effective Policies for Remedial
and Developmental Education. New Directions for Community Colleges No.
100. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Illich, P., Hagan, C., and McCallister, L. (2004). Performance in college-level
courses among students concurrently enrolled in remedial courses: Policy
implications. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28,
435-453.
115
Jacobson, J. (2006). A Nevada county shows that schools and colleges can work
together. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 10, B24.

Jacques, C. and Brorsen, B. (2002). Relationship Between Types of School District
Expenditures and Student Performance. Applied Economics Letters 9, 997-
1003.

Janesick, V. J. (2004). “Stretching” exercises for qualitative researchers (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Jones S., Torres, V., and Arminio, J. (2006). Negotiating the complexities of
qualitative research in higher education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kane, J., and Spizman, L. M. (1994). Race, financial aid and college attendance:
Parents and geography matter. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology, 53, 85-97.

Karabel, J. (1977). Community Colleges and Social Stratification: Submerged Class
Conflict in American Higher Education. In Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H., In
Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press: p.
232-53.

Karoly, L. A., and Panis, C. W. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces shaping
the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Retrieved on May
13, 2009 from: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG164/

Kirst, M. and Bracco, K. (1996). “Bridging the great divide. How the k-12 and
postsecondary split hurts students, and what can be done about it.” In Kirst,
M. and Venezia, A., From High School to College. Improving opportunities
for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kolajo, E. (2004). From developmental education to graduation: a community
college experience. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
28, 365-371.

Kreysa, P. G. (2006). The impact of remediation on persistence of under-prepared
college students. Journal of College Student Retention, 8(2), 251-270.

Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., and Petroski, G. F. (2001). Helping seventh graders be
safe and successful: A statewide study of the impact of comprehensive
guidance and counseling programs. Journal of Counseling and Development,
79, 320–330.
116
Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., and Sun,Y. (1997).The impact of more fully
implemented guidance programs on the school experiences of high school
students: A statewide evaluation study. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 75, 292–302.

Lee, R. S. (1993). Effects of classroom guidance on student achievement.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 27, 163–171.

Lesik, S. A. (2007). Do developmental mathematics programs have a causal impact
on student retention? An application of discrete-time survival and
regression-discontinuity analysis. Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 583-
608.

Long, B. T. and Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable
pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 31 (1), 30-53.

Lundell, D. B., Beach, R. and Jung, H. (2007). Facets of access: Students‟
impressions and experiences in the General College. In D.B. Lundell, J. L.
Higbee, I. M. Duranczyk and R. Goff (Eds.), Student Standpoints About
Access Programs in Higher Education. Minneapolis, MI: Center for
Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy (CRDEUL).

Luzzo, D.A., and Pierce, G. (1996). Effects of DISCOVER on the career maturity of
middle school students. The Career Development Quarterly, 45 (2), 170-172.

Martinez, M. and Klopott, S. (2003). Improving college access for minority, low-
income, and first-generation students. Washington, DC: Pathways to College
Network Clearinghouse.

Maxwell, M. (1997). What are the functions of a college learning assistance
center? MM Associates, Kensington, Maryland. ERIC #ED413031.

Maxwell, W., Hagedorn, L. S., Cypers, S., Lester, J., and Moon, H. (2004).
Fragmentary cohorts, full cohorts, and the placement/course level match in
remedial mathematics courses among urban community college students.
Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.

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

117
McCusker, M. (1999). ERIC review: Effective elements of developmental reading
and writing programs. Community College Review, 27, 93-105.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools
structure opportunity. New York, NY: SUNY Press.

Merchant, B. (1996). “Roadblocks to effectivc K-16 reform in Illinois.” In Kirst, M.
and Venezia, A., From High School to College. Improving opportunities for
success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, California, Jossey-Bass.

Moss, B. G., and Yeaton, W. H. (2006). Shaping Policies Related to Developmental
Education: An Evaluation Using the Regression-Discontinuity Design.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 215.

Myers, E. (1999). Developmental Reading Educators and Student Affairs
Professionals: Partners Promoting College Student Growth. In J. L. Higbee
and P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The Expanding Role of Developmental Education.
Auburn, CA: National Association for Developmental Education.

National Center for Education Statistics (1996). Remedial education at higher
education institutions in Fall 1995. Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement.

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2009). Student
Pipeline -Transition and Completion Rates from 9th Grade to College.
Retrieved March 16, 2009 from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=119&year=20
06& level=nation&mode=data&state=0

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (1998, Summer). The
remedial controversy. National Crosstalk, 6(3), p. 2.

O'Connor, C. (1999). Race, class, and gender in America: Narratives of
opportunity among low-income African-American Youths. Sociology of
Education, 72(2), 137-157.

Office of the Vice President for Academic Planning and Policy (OVAPP). (2008).
Defining the Math Crisis in Hawaii: Math Summit. Retrieved on May 29,
2009 from http://www.hawaii.edu/mathsummit/?cmd=summit1
118
O‟Hear, M., and MacDonald, R. (1995). A critical review of research in
developmental education, Part I. Journal of Developmental Education, 19(2),
2-6.

Orfield, G. and Paul, F. (1993). High hopes, long odds: A major report on Hoosier
teens and the American dream. Indianapolis: Indiana Youth Institute.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008).
Education at a glance 2008. Retrieved on May 23, 2009 from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/46/41284038.pdf

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007). PISA 2006:
Science Competencies For Tomorrow‟s World: OECD Briefing Note for the
United States. Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_3971
8850_1_1_1_1,00.html

Parsad, B., Lewis, L., and Greene, B. (2003). Remedial education at degree-
granting postsecondary institutions in Fall 2000 (NCES 2004-010).
Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pedelty, M. (2001). Stigma. In J. L. Higbee, D. B. Lundell and I. M. Duranczyk
(Eds.), 2001: A Developmental Odyssey. Auburn, CA: National Association
for Developmental Education.

Pennington, H., Murray, S. E. and Tucker, M. (2003). Accelerating Advancement in
School and Work. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 6, 339-376.

Peterson, G. W., Long, K. L., and Billups, A. (1999). The effect of three career
interventions on educational choices of eighth grade students. Professional
School Counseling, 3(1), 34-42.

Rosembaum, J. (2001). Beyond college for all. New York: Russell Sage
Foundations.

Sink, C. A., and Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of early
elementary school students through comprehensive school counseling
programs. Professional School Counseling, 6, 350–364.

119
Spann, Jr., M. G. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21s century learning society.
Education Commission of the States Policy Paper, No. CC-00-4.

Spurling, S. (2000). The effect of process interventions and matriculation services
on student persistence and success. Journal of Applied Research in the
Community College, 8(1), 31-41.

Stage, F. and Kloosterman, P. (1995). Gender, beliefs, and achievement in remedial
college-level mathematics. Journal of Higher Education, 66(3), 294-311.

Stage, F. K., and Rushin, P. W. (1993). A Combined Model of Student
Predisposition to College and Persistence in College. Journal of College
Student Development, 34, 276-82.

Stoops, N. (2004). Educational attainment in the United States: 2003. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. census Bureau. Retrieved on May 29, 2009 from
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.js
p?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED486333&ERICExtSe
arch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED486333.

Tinto, V., Russo, P., and Stephanie, K. (1994). Constructing educational
communities: Increase retention in challenging circumstances. Community
College Journal, 64(4), 18-22.

University of Hawai„i (2008a). Measuring Our Progress. Retrieved on April 15,
2009 from: http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/mop/

University of Hawai„i (2008b). University of Hawai„i system strategic outcomes and
performance measures, 2008-2015. Retrieved on November 23, 2008 from:
http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/uhplan/SOPM.pdf

University of Hawai`i Institutional Research Office (UHRIO). (2009). June 2007
Hawai„i public high school graduates enrolled in remedial and/or
developmental classes at the University of Hawaii Community Colleges in
Fall 2007. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.Hawai„i .edu/iro/

University of Hawai„i Community College (UHCC) (2008). UHCC strategic plan
2002-2010 update: Strategic outcomes and performance measures, 2008-
2015. Honolulu, Hawai„i : University of Hawai„i Community Colleges.

University of Hawai`i MAPS (2005). Fall Enrollment Reports, UH Community
Colleges. Retrieved April 18, 2009 from
http://www.windward.hawaii.edu/ir/Creditaldefault.htm.
120
University of Hawai`i Windward Community College (UHWC) (2008a). Brochure.
Retrieved April 18, 2009 from
http://windward.hawaii.edu/Future_Students/Windward_CC_ViewBook.pdf

University of Hawai`i Windward Community (UHWCC) (2008b). College Credit
Courses. Retrieved April 18, 2009 from
http://windward.hawaii.edu/Credit_Courses/index.html#MATH

University of Hawai`i Windward Community College (UHWCC) (2008c).
Placement Test (2008c). Retrieved April 18, 2009.

University of Hawai`i Windward Community College (UHWCC). (2007). Quick
Facts. Retrieved April 18, 2009 from
http://www.windward.hawaii.edu/ir/QuickFacts/Quick%20Facts%20Fall%20
2007.htm.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). List of Approved ``Ability-to-Benefit'' (ATB)
Tests and Passing Scores. Retrieved May 20, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2006-2/051906g.html

U.S. Department of Education (2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES
2004-077). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003).
Remedial Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall
2000: Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 2004-010). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001).
Conditions of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Labor (2008). Occupational Handbook, 2008-2009 Edition.
Washington, DC. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos067.htm

Valeri-Gold, M., Callahan, C. A., Deming, M. P., Mangram, M. T., and Errico, M.
(1997). Reflections: Experience commentaries by urban developmental
studies students. In. P. L. Dwinell and J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Developmental
education: Enhancing student retention (p. 3-18). Carol Stream, IL: National
Association for Developmental Education.

121
Vargas, J. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college.
Retrieved November 16, 2008 from http://174.133.199.34/pdf/research-
studies/CollegeKnowledge.pdf

Venezia, A. (1996). “K-16 turmoil in Texas.” In Kirst, M. and Venezia, A., From
High School to College. Improving opportunities for success in
postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Venezia, A, Kirst M.W., and Antonio, A. L. (2003). Betraying the college dream:
How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine
student aspirations. The Bridge Project, Stanford University.

Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., and Nunez, A. M. (2001). Bridging the gap:
Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first generation college
students (NCES 200153). Washington, DC: The National Center for
Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 19,
2009 from http://nces.ed.gov

Webb, L. D., Brigman, G. A., and Campbell, C. (2005). Linking school counselors
and student success: A replication of the student success skills approach
targeting the academic and social competence of students. Professional
School Counseling, 8, 407–413.

Weissmnan, J., Rulaskowski, C. and Jumisko, M. (1997). Using research to evaluate
developmental education program and policies. In Juan M. Ignash, ed.
Implementing Effective Policies for Remedial and Developmental Education.
New Directions for Community Colleges No. 100. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Weissman, J., Silk, E., and Bulakowski, C. (1997). Assessing Developmental
Education Policies. Research in Higher Education, 38(29).

Whiston, S., and Sexton,T. (1998). A Review of School Counseling Outcome
Research: Implications for Practice. Journal of Counseling and Development,
76, 412–426.

White Paper Group Committee (WPGC). (2007). Remedial and developmental
education in the university of Hawai`i Community College System.
University of Hawai`i Community Colleges.

Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing Up Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

122
Wolfe, B. and Zuvekas, S. (1997). Nonmarket outcomes of schooling.
International Journal of Educational Research, 27(6): 491-501.
123
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE PROCEDURES FOR PRE-INTERVIEW
1. Introduce self and thank student for agreeing to participate
2. Briefly describe the purpose of the research
3. Ask the student the following questions, stressing that these responses are
voluntary:

Pre-Interview Questions
a. Name?
b. Age?
c. Race/Ethnicity?
d. Approximate household income in the past year?
e. Are you a first generation college student in your family? (Are the first
person in your family to attend college?)

f. Do you receive Financial Aid? If so, what type?
g. Where did you receive your high school education?
Name of High School ________________
h. If it‟s not a school in Hawaii, what is the city and state of your high
school?

i. What year did you graduate from high school?
j. What classes are you taking this semester?
k. What is your intended major?
4. Thank the student for answering the questions
124

5. Describe the semi-structured interview process
a. There will be a series of questions that will take approximately 1 hour
b. All information will be confidential
c. The responses are voluntary
d. The responses will be audio recorded
e. The responses will be transcribed and sent to the student for their review
to ensure accuracy.

6. Answer any questions from student regarding the interview process.
7. Ask for their willingness to participate?
8. If so, set up a date and time for individual interview.
125
APPENDIX B
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
High School Experience:
1. Tell me about your educational background. How do you feel about the high
school that you have experienced?

2. Which areas of study have you succeeded in?
3. What made you succeed in those areas?
4. Why do you feel that you have had less success in those areas?
5. What was the last math that you took in high school?
6. Who was your teacher for this class?
7. Do you think that s/he prepared you for college? Please explain.
8. What grade did you receive from that class?
9. What was your overall high school GPA?
10. Was your high school counselor helpful to help you transition and prepare for
college? Why or why not?

Transitional Experience:
11. Has the transition to college met your expectations? Why or why not?
12. Who or what supported (helped) you in this transition?
13. What support did you expect to receive that you have not?
14. How did your peers affect your education?
15. How did your family influence your educational career?
126
College Experience:
16. When did you take the math placement test?
17. What was your score?
18. How did you know that you had to take the COMPASS placement?
19. Did you prepare for the COMPASS test? If so, how did you prepare for it?
20. If offered a math placement/brush-up course, would you have taken it?
21. What factors influenced your decision to enroll in remedial/developmental
math versus college math?

22. Describe and evaluate your experiences in Math 25? What are some of the
positive aspects of Math 25? What are some of the negative aspects?

23. Were you aware that you would not receive college credit when taking Math
25?

24. What advice would you give to someone who is able to enroll in college math
but thinking of enrolling in Math 25 next year?

25. If you could do it all over again, would you take Math 25 instead of the
college math?

26. How do you think that you are perceived by University students who are not
in remedial/developmental math?

27. How do you think that students outside of remedial/developmental math
perceive students in remedial/developmental math?

28. Does this perception influence your feelings about yourself as a student or as
a person, in general?
127
Miscellaneous questions
29. Why are you at Windward Community College?
30. What were your other options, and why did you choose Windward
Community College?

31. Are you planning on transferring to another college or another university? If
so, what is your intended major? What is your career plans?
128
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FROM PEDALTY (2001) AND
DOMINICK ET AL. (2007)
Highlighted are the interview questions used from Dominick, V., Stevens, C., and
Smith, M. (2007). Transition from high school to college: a qualitative study of
developmental students. In D. B. Lundell, J. L. Higbee, and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.),
Student standpoints about access programs in higher education. Minneapolis, MN:
Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban Literacy, General
College, University of Minnesota, Monograph Series #6., p. 21-30.

1. How did you think college was going to be different?
2. How can you use the information covered in this class to help you be
successful in the rest of your college career?

3. Has the transition to college met your expectations? Why or why not?
4. Who or what supported (helped) you in this transition?
5. What support did you expect to receive that you have not?
Highlighted are the interview questions from: Pedelty, M. (2001). Stigma. In J. L.
Higbee, D. B. Lundell and I. M. Duranczyk (Eds.), 2001: A Developmental Odyssey.
Auburn, CA: National Association for Developmental Education.

1. Would you please give me a general outline of your life history? Where are
you from and where have you lived? What do the members of your family do
for a living? What have been the most important events in your life to this
point?

2. Tell me about your educational background. Where did you receive your
education? How do you feel about the educational institutions that you have
experienced? Which areas of study have you succeeded in? What made you
succeed in those areas? Which areas of study have you been the least
successful in? Why do you feel that you have had less success in those areas?
How have extracurricular activities (including employment) affected your
education? How did your peers affect your education? How did your family
influence your educational career?

129
3. Why are you in South Haven? What were your other options, and why did
you choose South Haven? How do you feel about being assigned to South
Haven?

4. Describe and evaluate your educational experience at South Haven thus far.
Have you gained a lot from South Haven? What are some of the positive
aspects of South Haven? What are some of the negative aspects? How do you
feel about being a South Haven student? What advice would you give to
someone who is thinking of enrolling in South Haven next year?

5. Describe South Haven student culture. What types of interactions do you
experience with South Haven students in the classroom? What types of
interactions do you experience with students outside the classroom? What
types of interactions do you observe inside the classroom? What types of
student interactions do you observe outside the classroom? Are there
subcultures (e.g., interest groups, cohorts arranged by ethnicity, cliques, etc.)
within the South Haven student body? Are you part of any of these
subcultures or subgroups? Describe your subculture or subgroup. Why do
you belong to this subgroup, and how does it influence your educational
experience? Describe other subcultures or subgroups and their interactions
with other South Haven students. In general, how do you feel about your
peers in the South Haven? How do you think that you are perceived by
University students who are not South Haven majors? How do you think the
South Haven is perceived by students outside of the South Haven? Does this
perception influence your feelings about yourself as a student? Does this
perception influence your feelings about yourself as a person, in general?

6. Where do you plan to go after the South Haven? Are you planning on
transferring to another college or another university? If so, what are you
going to major in? What are your career plans?

7. Thank you for allowing me to interview you. I am going to select certain
responses in order to craft a monologue and performance. I will submit the
monologue to you before showing it to anyone else. You will have complete
editorial control. If there is anything that you would like to delete or add, you
will have the opportunity to do so. Please note that I will be performing this
monologue in front of my class, and it might be filmed for inclusion in a
documentary film about the South Haven. Would you prefer that use your
real name, or would you prefer that I apply a pseudonym for the monologue
and performance? You will have the ability to modify elements in the
monologue to disguise your identity, if you so choose. Question clusters 3
through 5 were the most likely to elicit responses concerning stigma.
130
APPENDIX D
E-MAIL INVITATION SENT BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR FOR STUDENTS
TO PARTICIPATE IN A STUDY

Aloha WW CC Student,

I hope this email finds you and your family in good health and spirit. My name is Lui
K. Hokoana the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs at WW Community College. In
our continued pursuit to meet the needs of our students I am asking that you consider
participating in a study being conducted by Dee Uwono. Participation is voluntary,
information from the study will help us improve the way we serve students at WW
Community College. You can contact her by e-mail at deeuwono@hawaii.edu or by
phone at 956-7705. Following my note is information about the study and how you
can participate. I strongly encourage you to participate.

You have been identified through WW Community College as an eligible participant
for a study called Perceptions and Attitudes of “Low Router” Students in
Remedial/Developmental Math at the University of Southern California. Your
participation in this study is voluntary. We are asking you to take part in a research
study because we are trying to learn more about the perceptions and attitudes of
students who were placed in college math but chose to take remedial/developmental
math. Participation in the project will consist of responding to a few brief questions
via e-mail, in-person or on the telephone and then several questions during an
individual interview with the principal investigator. Data from the interview will be
summarized into broad themes.

The study will be confidential and no personal identifying information will be
included with the research results. Each phone interview will last approximately 10
minutes and each individual interview will last approximately 60 - 90 minutes. It is
anticipated that approximately 10 students will participate in the study. Interviews
will be audio recorded for the purpose of transcription. The investigator will ask you
a list of questions to include basic inquiry about yourself and perceptions and
experiences from high school and college.

The investigator believes that there is little or no risk to participating in this research
project. Participating in this research may be of little or no direct benefit to you. It
is believed, however, that the results of the project will help improve both the
knowledge and the practice of developmental education faculty and staff members at
WW Community College. “You will not benefit directly from participating in this
research study.”
131
Research data will be confidential to the extent allowed by law. Agencies with
research oversight, such as the UH and USC Committee on Human Studies, have
authority to review research data. All research records and audiotapes will be stored
in a locked desk drawer at the residence of the principal investigator for the duration
of the research project. Please note that the data should be stored for at least three
years after the completion of the study, at which time the data may be destroyed.

Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You are free to
withdraw from participation at any time during the duration of the project with no
penalty.

At the end of the one-on-one interview, a $10 Starbucks gift card will be provided to
you for participating in this study.

If you are interested in being a participant for this study, please contact the principal
investigator, Dee Uwono, by telephone or e-mail.

The following is her information:

Dee Uwono
(808) 956-7705 - phone
deeuwono@hawaii.edu

If you have questions regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact:
The University Park IRB
Office of the Vice Provost for Research
Stonier Hall, Room 224A
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146
Phone: (213) 821-5272
Email: upirb@usc.edu

Committee on Human Studies
2540 Maile Way
Spalding Hall 253
Honolulu, HI 96822
Phone: 808.956.5007
Email: uhirb@hawaii.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although much national effort has been made to align the K-12 and higher education systems, the educational pipeline is still leaky at every stage. Furthermore, one of the on-going issues in the educational system is the lack of readiness of high school graduates for post-secondary education, especially for low income and minority students. As a result, there is a staggering number of students who enter college and are placed into non-credit-bearing, remedial courses. One of the goals set by the Department of Education (DOE) is to decrease the number of Hawaii high school graduates enrolled in remedial education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

PDF

Factors inhibiting application for financial aid by low-income students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

PDF

The influence of counselors and high school organization on the selection of participants for a dual credit program

PDF

Native Hawaiians and college success: Does culture matter?

PDF

The relationship of a culturally relevant and responsive learning environment to achievement motivation for Native Hawaiian secondary students

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

Learning effectiveness: a comparitive study to measure effectiveness of webcasting in success of students in an introductory computer science class

PDF

Hawaiian language and culture in the middle level math class

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

Perception and use of instructional technology: teacher candidates as adopters of innovation

PDF

Designing an early warning system for Hawaii: identifying indicators of positive high school outcomes

PDF

Teachers as bystanders: the effect of teachers’ perceptions on reporting bullying behavior

PDF

An investigation of students' perceptions and fears before and after transitioning to middle school

PDF

Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

Enhancing professional development aimed at changing teachers' perceptions of Micronesian students

Asset Metadata

Creator Uwono Koike, Dee (author)

Core Title The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/09/2010

Defense Date 05/07/2010

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag community college,low-router students,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions and attitudes,remedial/developmental math

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Brewer, Dominic J. (committee chair), Picus, Lawrence (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email deeuwono@gmail.com,deeuwono@hawaii.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3182

Unique identifier UC1242419

Identifier etd-Koike-3858 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-364739 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3182 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Koike-3858.pdf

Dmrecord 364739

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Uwono Koike, Dee

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu