University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
THE PERCEPTIONS OF FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS OF REMEDIAL
MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN TWO HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS

by

Asoke Kumar Datta

______________________________________________________________

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

December 2010

Copyright 2010 Asoke Kumar Datta

ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Nimai Chandra Datta,
M.D., F.R.C.S., who did not live to see this day.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the culmination of an effort that could not have been
possible without the support and guidance of many people.
For his graciousness and patience, I sincerely thank my committee chair, Dr.
Dominic Brewer. His guidance, indomitable will and good cheer kept me going
when I fell behind. My thanks go also to my committee members, Dr. Larry Picus
and Dr. Melora Sundt, whose time, both in and out of the classroom has been helped
me in ways beyond this dissertation.
I also need to thank the members of “Team Dom” who toiled with me in
taking this journey. Because of all of you, it was not a lonely road.
Finally, to my wife, Monique. None of this would be possible but for you.
Your kind and gentle support kept me sane and your calm patience buoyed my
spirits. For three years we toiled together on our doctorates. And I would not have it
any other way.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
Abstract v
Chapter 1: The Problem of Remediation in University Curriculums 1
Figure 1: Comparison of Hawaii student performance to national 3
and best performing states at pipeline transition points

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 11
Chapter 3: Methodology 32
Chapter 4: Findings 39
Table 1: Study participants 41
Chapter 5: Discussion of Findings and Recommendations 59
References 70
Appendix A: Procedures for Pre-Interview Questionnaire 77
Appendix B: Interview Questions 78

v
ABSTRACT
This study explores the perceptions held by faculty and administrators about
the effectiveness and institutional characteristics of remedial mathematics programs
at two community colleges. Each college approaches remedial education in a
different manner but achieves similar outcomes.
A qualitative approach was used to elicit a rich spectrum of opinions and
experiences to highlight those individual and organizational factors that shape the
respondents beliefs and understanding of what they do. Analysis of the responses
indicates that there is a significant degree of difference between the opinions of
administrators and faculty members on the issues of programmatic effectiveness and
faculty professional development. Additionally, it was found that a perceived lack of
institutional or system level policies exists. Furthermore, a sense of stigmatization
can be found amongst faculty who exclusively teach remedial mathematics courses.

1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM OF REMEDIATION IN UNIVERSITY CURRICULUMS
Introduction
A contentious issue among educators, policy makers and researchers is the
rapidly growing use of developmental or remedial course work at the post-secondary
education level in the United States (Atwell, Lavin, Domina & Levey, 2006; Dowd,
2007; Bahr, 2008). However, while the place or appropriateness of specific types of
remedial course work may be in question, the fact that many institutions employ it is
without question. In 1995 the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that in the
1993-1994 academic year 60 percent of incoming freshman to the California State
University System required some level of remedial course work (“Ready or Not,”
1995). More recent data for the community colleges from Parsad and Lewis and
Greene (2003) indicate that approximately 40 percent of the newly admitted students
will register for remedial education courses. A number of States that have some level
of legislation requiring remedial course work in state funded post-secondary
institutions (Shaw, 1997). Yet, anecdotally at least, many college and university
faculty and staff believe that preparing students for college course work falls within
the purview of the secondary school system.
Background of Problem
The Education Pipeline
It is often said that higher education is to some degree at the mercy of the K-
12 pipeline of students. But this distinction creates a somewhat arbitrary division

2
between K-12 schools and post-secondary institutions. Education in the United
States is better considered as a pipeline from kindergarten through college graduation
- a K-16 pipeline as it were.
The K-16 pipeline is a construct whereby one can conceptualize education as
a whole system. At various points along this pipeline students may drop out for a
variety of reasons. In defining this construct for the purposes of this study Ewell,
Jones and Kelly’s (2003) explanation of the pipeline is used. They describe it as a
series of educational transition points beginning with the move from (1) high school
to college, (2) entry into college level course work, (3) persistence in college going,
(4) completion of college and (5) entrance into the workforce. Each of these
transition points is an opportunity for each student to face challenges that will
determine if he or she will progress to the next stage. Many factors come to play
during these transitions. One of the most popularly discussed benchmarks is
academic performance. But underlying this, a host of economic, governmental,
social and familial traits are at play (Astin, 1993 1998; Kirst & Bracco, 1996). As
this study pertains to the K-16 pipeline in Hawaii, it is important to have an
understanding of the situation in the state as it compares to the nation.
According to data gathered during the 2006 academic year the National
Council on Higher Education Management (NCHEMS) reports that nationally 69 out
of 100 students completed the ninth grade complete high school on time. Of these 42
entered colleges in the subsequent year, 28 persisted into their sophomore year and
only 20 completed their college course of study within six years (NCHEMS, 2009).

3
In contrast, for 100 Hawaii ninth graders, 68 graduated high school on time, 41 enter
college immediately following high school, 24 continue college into their second
year consecutively, and 12 complete college (NCHEMS, 2009). Thus while Hawaii
students seem to exhibit similar achievement into the second year of college, there is
a significant rate of college non-completion (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Comparison of Hawaii student performance to national and best
performing states at pipeline transition points. Source: The National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006

4
Recent data derived from the National Educational Longitudinal Study, also
referred to as NELS: 88, has garnered information on the state of remedial and
developmental course work in the post-secondary environment. This cohort consists
of a national sample of students who were in the eighth-grade in 1988. Interestingly,
40 percent of the NELS: 88 cohort took some level of remedial course work during
their college careers. The number is slightly higher in the 2001 statistics reported by
the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Taken in
conjunction with the drop in high school graduation rates from 77 percent in 1969 to
70 percent in 1995 and the ACT figure of roughly 40 percent of freshman not
continuing to their second year of college, this confluence of circumstances should
raise some level of alarm about the plight of remedial students among the nation’s
educators (ACT, 2007).
It would be difficult to determine exactly when or where remedial and
developmental courses were first offered in a post-secondary institution in the United
States. However, records from the University of Wisconsin and Wellesley College
indicate that such curricula began to appear in the mid 1800’s (Hawkins & Phillip,
1992; Cross, 1976). Yet, one could argue that if the K-12 education system is
functioning adequately incoming college students should not need remedial course
work. However, this line of reasoning rests on the supposition that K-12 education is
designed to prepare students for a college education. Whether or not this is the case
is debatable, but the fact remains that students moving from secondary school
systems into post-secondary institutions do not always arrive with the requisite skills

5
or knowledge needed to succeed academically (Fike & Fike, 2008). To address this
shortcoming institutions have been struggling to find a means by which such student
deficiencies can be overcome. Within the institution, the struggle often comes down
to a debate over maintaining access to post-secondary education and ensuring the
academic integrity of the institution and its programs (Perin, 2006). Dowd (2007)
argues that the universal acceptance policies exhibited by many community colleges
are at times in conflict with the overarching goal of a collegiate education because on
one hand they must protect transfer access to the four-year institutions while at the
same time they must provide the community with access to an education that cannot
be delivered in the secondary school system.
Leaving the controversy over whether or not remedial education belongs in
the post-secondary environment aside, it has fallen mainly to the state community
college systems to address the needs of academically deficient students (Kreysa,
2006). One could argue that this is in part due to the likelihood that empirical
research could settle the debate over the location of this educational responsibility.
As such, this is where there is the most effort to incorporate remedial and
developmental education programs into the curriculum and mission of the
institutions. Because of the widespread adoption of remedial efforts in community
colleges, one may investigate those factors that enable an institution to successfully
offer the chance of program completion to students lacking those skills commonly
attributed to the well-prepared student.

6
It can be argued that the faculty and administration of an institution set the
tone in which students function in an institution. Additionally, the levels of support
the students receive both in and out of the classroom may help determine their
success in achieving their educational goals (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Shaw,
1997). Thus it is important to consider how an institution approaches and fosters
their student support services.
Remedial education has often been associated with a certain amount of
stigmatization (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Kisker & Oucalt, 2005; Shaw,
1997). This negative perception stems from the fact that most remedial courses are
considered to be more of the high school level because they address academic
deficiencies that prevent credit toward degree course taking. Unfortunately for many
students this information is not readily made aware or available to them (Deil-Amen
& Rosenbaum, 2002). Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) found that this stigma of
remedial course taking impacts the way an institution relates to its students. Prior to
the 20
th
century many institutions did not attempt to ameliorate the academic stigma
of remedial course taking. Rather, the academic advisors came to use the student lack
of success to ‘help’ a student come to learn their deficiencies and set more realistic
goals (Karabel, 1977). This process, called cooling out, induced students to allow
their academic aspirations to be used as a tool through which they could be shifted
into programs that better suited the institutions goals or mission (Deil-Amen &
Rosenbaum, 2002; Karabel, 1977). In the end, the student was lead to believe that he

7
or she had been given an opportunity that may not have been realistic for them and
that failure to achieve the goal was in effect “Okay.”
However, the move towards greater access to higher education seems to have
changed the manner in which students are fostered in higher education. This may be
particularly true in the community colleges (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Shaw,
1997). Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) found that institutions have been
attempting to ameliorate the negative connotations that the taking of remedial
courses places upon students. At face value this seems to be a beneficial change.
Yet, the diminishment of remedial stigmatization may prevent students from
understanding the impact that their academic deficiencies may have on their degree
aspirations (Shaw, 1997). Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2002) found that the trend in
masking the remedial stigma has lead to students not understanding their situation
and the fostering of unrealistic goals. The negative aspects of this trend are
compounded if the propensity for college faculty and staff do not fully advise
students on their degree paths (Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum, 2002).
Statement of Problem
In the research literature on remedial education there is little evidence
pertaining to the perceptions on the part of faculty and administrators and the role
that they play in the efficacy of programs. Owing to this lack of research, educators
responsible for remedial courses or programs do not have an understanding of the
interplay of faculty and administrator roles and how they will impact student
performance. This lack of understanding is an important gap to be addressed because

8
program design and effectiveness cannot be adequately addressed if an institution
does not understand how its personnel operate within the culture of the institution
and specifically within a program or discipline.
Purpose of Study
Data from the research that will be addressed in this study indicates that a
large percentage of each incoming collegiate freshman class may not have the
requisite academic skills needed for successful completion of programs or degrees.
In the State of Hawaii the seven community colleges have taken differing approaches
to providing remedial course work to students, even though they are part of the same
system. This qualitative study will add to the literature on college remediation
through the examination of perceptions about the development of programs held by
faculty and administrators. Faculty members, both those holding full-time positions
as well as adjuncts, will be selected from those teaching remedial math courses.
Administrators with responsibility for compliance with State and University of
Hawaii System regulation compliance, program implementation and operations will
also be interviewed.
Research Questions
Specifically, this study will attempt to answer to the following questions:
• How do institutional characteristics effect the development and
perceptions of remedial education programs at the community colleges?
How did these programs develop?

9
• What perceptions of program impact and effectiveness do the faculty and
administrators hold? Do these perceptions vary between faculty and
administrators?
Importance of Study
This qualitative case study on community college faculty and administrator
perceptions toward remedial education programs, will inform academic leaders of
the difficulties and challenges faced by colleges that are attempting to define their
own programs. While educational outcomes of students in remedial programs
continue to be researched, the administrative and faculty perspectives are not directly
addressed in the literature. This study will directly address those factors that the
personnel who actively engage in the implementation and management of remedial
programs perceive as helping or hindering their efforts. Particular attention will be
paid to perceptions of organizational efficacy. This study will add to the available
body of literature that may be referenced by faculty members and administrators who
wish to look at their entire organization’s behavior when it comes to developing
programs that support remedial course taking.
Limitations
The scope of this study is constrained by the number of faculty members
teaching remedial math courses at two community colleges in the State of Hawaii.
Accordingly, the sample sizes for faculty range between four and eight at each
institution. This includes adjuncts. Owing to the current fiscal climate, use of adjunct
instructors is projected to decrease across the University of Hawaii Community

10
College System by the time this study will be implemented. Therefore, access to
adjuncts may be even more limited.
Delimitations
This study has been delimited in two specific ways. First, only two of the
seven community colleges in the State were selected. Suburban Community College
was chosen for the relative newness of its remedial education program. City
Community College was chosen because it program is the most established in the
State. Second, only Math faculty will be interviewed. Thus the ability to generalize
the findings may be limited.
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 take the student’s
life circumstances into account (Moss & Yeaton, 2006)
Remedial Education: programs or courses through with students are given the
opportunity to learn or re-learn basic academic skills needed for college level course
work (Boylon & Saxon 1999; Casazza, 1999). Usually these credits do not count
toward completion of an academic course of study.

11
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
A great deal has been written on the general topic of remedial and
developmental education in the post-secondary setting. Because of the open
admissions policies governing community college, the literature has particularly
focused on the prevalence and effects of remediation at these institutions. (Adelman,
1999; Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Moss & Yeaton, 2006). It is estimated that
anywhere from 40 percent of students attending four year college students to 60
percent of students entering community college will require some level of remedial
or developmental coursework (Adelman, 1999; Attwell, Lavin, Domina & Levey,
2006).
While the impacts of remedial education on student motivation, retention and
degree persistence have been the focus of sporadic study, little research has focused
on the institutions themselves (Phipps, 1998). Therefore this study will attempt to
elucidate the perceptions held by faculty and administrators of the remedial programs
offered at their institutions. To provide a framework upon which to base this study
four areas of the literature will be addressed. They are (a) the academic preparation
of students at the time of college matriculation; (b) culture and support; (c)
institutional policies and organization factors; and (d) faculty and administration
perceptions.

12
Academic Preparation
A Brief History of Remediation
Remedial education courses in higher education are by no means a recent
phenomenon. Evidence of the availability of remedial coursework in America can be
found as far back as the colonial period. Phipps (1998) reported that remediation in
classical languages was available at Harvard University as early as the 17
th
century.
The advent of the land-grant university spawned further remedial efforts with the
University of Wisconsin offering the first comprehensive program for mathematics,
reading and writing in the mid-1800’s (Breneman & Haarlow, 1998; Hawkins &
Phillip, 1992; Payne & Lyman, 1998). Ignash (1997) determined that in 1894 as
much as 40 percent of incoming freshman took “pre-collegiate” coursework offered
by the institution. Thus, one cannot examine the issues of remediation without taking
into account that the American higher education system has a history of admitting
students into post-secondary schooling despite a lack of perceive college level skills.
The need for remediation is not a recent phenomenon.
Effectiveness of Remediation
The manner in which remedial education is delivered in an institution impacts
the success or failure of an institution’s effort in this area. Each institution will
design and manage its programs in a manner that is consistent with the policies and
mission under which it operates. In earlier periods in the history of U.S. higher
education remedial course work focused on the subjects that were valued. Thus,

13
classical studies at Harvard and subjects that aided future land managers would give
way to mathematics and basic skills seen in today’s remedial programs.
What is effective remediation? One could define its effectiveness, or whether
or not it ‘works’, from a number of perspectives. First, one could determine if
remediation works if students can show that they have achieved the learning
outcomes defined by the institution for a particular course. Or one could define
effectiveness by the rate of student success in the classes for which remediation was
intended to prepare them for. Ultimately, the utility of remediation will be defined
by how one looks at it; from the learning outcomes perspective, institutional mission
or degree completion.
According to recent studies, many students are entering college without the
academic preparation needed for college level work and thus in need of remediation
in certain subjects and skill sets (Adelman, 1999, 2004; Attewell, et. al, 2006;
McCabe, 2000; Parsad, Lewis and Greene, 2003). The distribution of these students
varies between college types with more students in community college settings
requiring remediation than those in four-year colleges (Adelman, 2006). To cope
with this volume, 78 percent of all post-secondary institutions offer some level of
remedial education programs with the greatest concentration in the state community
college systems (Parsad et. al., 2003).
The general effectiveness of remedial education has been addressed in a
number of specific studies. Notable among these are the works of Clifford Adelman
(2006) and Paul Attewell (2006). Both studies concentrate on findings derived from

14
the National Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS: 88). In this national survey a
sample of representative 8
th
grade students was tracked. Findings from the studies
based on this data are key to an understanding of the breadth and impact of
remediation upon college students.
While Adelman re-affirms his findings from his previous large scale study,
Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance, Patterns and Bachelor’s
Attainment (1999), in that academic rigor in high schools is the greatest single
indicator of college success, he also found that successful completion of remedial
programs in college did not adversely impact student completion rates. In fact, in a
study of the outcomes of remedial education programs in Ohio, Bettinger and Long
(2005) found that successful completion of remedial coursework eliminated any
statistical differences in program completion and transfer rates to four year colleges
between students needing remediation and those who did not.
Both of these results are supported by Attewell’s assessment of the NELS: 88
cohort. First, Attewell (2006) determined that 40 percent of the NELS: 88 students
who entered college, took at least one remedial course during their first year of post-
secondary education. Of this number 28 percent took a remedial course in
mathematics followed by 18 percent in writing and nine percent in reading.
Interestingly, 58 percent of the NELS: 88 students who attended community college
took some level of remedial coursework. Of particular note, Attewell’s analysis of
the data indicates that the taking of remedial course work is not limited to low
achieving student. Even after exclusion of students who return to college later in life,

15
it was determined that between 10 and 14 percent of students who completed high
school in the top academic quartile also took at least one remedial course during their
first year of college. This finding is in contrast to the discovery that 32 percent of the
students in the lowest academic quartile elected not to take remedial courses during
their first year in college (Attewell et. al, 2006). Thus, the commonly held
supposition that remedial courses are only for the lower performing students is not
supported.
Mathematics Remediation
How then does remediation in mathematics fit into this larger body of work
related to remediation in general? In a study conducted for the National Center for
Education Statistics, Parsad, Lewis and Greene (2003) determined that of the 28
percent of all students who enrolled in remedial college courses in the Fall semester
of 2000, 22 percent enrolled in remedial math courses during their first year of
coursework. This was followed by 14 percent taking remedial writing and 11 percent
enrolling in a remedial reading course. While successful completion of remedial
courses may be a general indicator of community college program completion, more
than in any other area of basic college skills, students require mathematics
remediation (Adelman, 2006; Fike & Fike, 2008; McCabe, 2000; Parsad, Lewis &
Greene, 2003). Indeed, Lesik (2007) found that more than 88 percent of students
who took remedial mathematics courses during their first year of community college
re-enrolled for the subsequent academic year. This is in contrast to the nearly 63
percent retention rate for equivalently placed students who decided not take remedial

16
courses. The decision to not enroll in remedial courses is significant to the Adelman
(2006) study as it ties in with Tinto’s (1987) model for student retention. Meaning,
that while institutions need to provide opportunities for students to interact with
aspects of the college or university, the student has to make the choice to do so for
his or herself. Ultimately, Tinto theorizes that of the many factors that influence the
potential for student departure, the manner in which he or she deals with the social
transitions that are experienced when leaving home and going to college, indicates
how long the student will remain in school (Tinto, 1988). Realizing that ones skills
are not at the requisite level for college courses is one such experience.
However, though Hall and Ponton (2005) showed that successful completion
of a degree’s math curriculum to be an indicator of a student’s overall chance of
degree completion, Fike and Fike (2008) determined that in the community college,
successful completion of developmental reading courses was the best predictor for
student retention from one term to the next. Completion of developmental math was
also a predictor, but did not exhibit the same strength of statistical association. While
the difference in the relative importance of students in remedial math and reading is
intriguing in its impacts on term to term retention, the finding that completion of
degree required math courses is important as it directly relates to a student’s
performance in developmental math. One must therefore ask the question; does
remedial math work?
To answer this question, Bahr (2008) studied the outcomes of 85,000 students
in 107 California Community Colleges. His findings indicate that students who

17
successfully complete remedial mathematics courses have essentially the same
program outcomes as students who did not need remediation. However, 75.4 percent
of all students who took remedial math did not pass the courses. Of these students
nearly 82 percent did not complete their community college programs (Bahr, 2008).
This outcome can be explained when one takes into account that such students may
have multiple deficiencies in mathematics including their breadth of content
knowledge (e.g. basic mathematics through trigonometry) and their depth of
knowledge in each subject.
Compounded academic deficiencies are not limited to the breadth and depth
in a particular discipline. Adelman (1996) proposes that reading and writing skills
are basic to the study of other disciplines. Taken at face value such a statement
would appear logical. However, study of students in the California Community
College System indicates that while students with higher reading scores tend to be
more successful at remedial math, it is the math skills that the student brings from
secondary education that are a better indicator of success (Bahr, 2007).
Socioeconomic Status & Ethnicity
Demographic data from the NELS: 88 and other studies indicate that students
from lower socioeconomic statuses (SES) and ethnic minorities are more likely to be
represented in remedial education courses. African American and Hispanic minority
students, regardless of their standardized test scores, are more likely to be placed into
college remedial courses than their Caucasian counterparts (Adelman, 2004; Attewel,
Domina & Levey, 2006; Perin, 2002) Additional studies indicate that as many as 57

18
percent of all remedial students fall into an ethnic minority group (Hagedorn et. al,
1999). This proportion of minority students in remedial education courses is carried
over into the category of students who have serious in reading, mathematics and
writing. McCabe (2000) reported that 56 percent of all students in this category were
from minority groups. McCabe’s finding is even more disturbing in that of the
minority student with serious academic deficiencies, 51 percent are women of ethnic
minority (McCabe, 2000). Yet, despite proportionally lower numbers, white students
are more likely to remediate successfully than their minority counterparts (Bahr,
2009c).
Tinto (1982) posited that not only does the university environment impact
student attrition, but also the student’s own environment outside the university is just
as influential. In particular, Tinto found that financial factors were even more
important during the period of entry into college. A second SES related
characteristic is the level of education attained by a student’s parents. There is an
association between the level of a parent’s academic achievement and that of their
child (Tinto, 1982; Fike & Fike, 2008).
In 1993 Astin proposed that SES impacted college persistence. When added
to first-generation college attendence and ethnic minority status this seems to add
increased importance on how students behave and perform in the post-secondary
education environment. In their study of social class and its implications for student
adjustment to college, Joan Ostrove and Susan Long (2007) pursue Astin’s assertion
about the connection between a sense of belonging to an institution and SES as a

19
factor of retention and persistence. They found that there was a strong relationship
between a student’s sense of higher social class and their sense of belonging to a
college. Additionally, they found that higher social class also positively impacts
performance (Ostrove & Long, 2007). In part, this can be seen as a factor of a
student’s social capital in relationship to their family and social history of college
pursuit.
Through an analysis of the data from the National Study of Student Learning
(NSSL) Pascarella, Peirson, Wolniak and Terenzini (2004) determined that first
generation college students, as well as those who work during college, are at a
disadvantage when is comes to being retained by colleges. Additionally, working
students are less likely to persist through completion of their degrees than those
students who did not need to work in order to attend post-secondary institutions
(Pascarella et al., 2004). Pascarela et al. (2004) contend that this phenomenon is a
factor of the student’s social capital. Meaning, “that individuals with highly educated
parents” have an understanding of the value and requirements of attaining post-
secondary education (Pascarella et al., 2004, p. 274). Through analysis of this data, it
was also determined that low SES and first generation college students exhibited a
number of academic characteristics that potentially further inhibited academic
success.
First, students who were the first in their families to attend college tend to
take fewer courses in a given term (Pascarella et al., 2004). They also tend to not
take Social Science, Art and Humanities courses with the same frequency as students

20
with a familial history of attending college. This is significant in that it was found
that cognitive and developmental outcomes were seen to increase during the second
and third years of college for first generation students who did choose to take more
Social Science and Humanities courses. These developmental increases occurred at a
greater rate than those found in other members of the student body (Pascarella et al.,
2004). Second, Pascarella found that first generation college students had a greater
negative academic response to responsibilities outside of their education. While it
has been the experience of this educator that many students hold jobs outside of the
university, Pascarella’s study found that students who fell into the first generation
category tended to have greater external responsibilities than other students. Finally,
this study found a link between self-efficacy, derived from academic success, and an
increased preference for higher-order cognitive tasks (p.274). This suggests that
there is an association between a student’s SES, academic performance and learning
ability.
In pursuing any line of questioning about the nature of low SES and college
attendance, one must not underestimate the role of social capital as it pertains to
college going and persistence rates. Wells (2008) argues that the type of post-
secondary institution a student chooses to attend indicates, to some degree, the level
of social capital he or she has. Wells compared persistence rates at community
colleges to those of students attending four-year colleges. Their level of exclusivity
further typified these four years colleges. The more exclusive a college or university
was the greater the need for a student to have a corresponding level of social capital

21
in order to have better chance to persist for any period of time (Wells, 2008).
Through his study Wells (2008) determined that student persistence between
community colleges and correspondingly exclusive four-year colleges was 21 to 28
percent more likely (Wells, 2008). Thus, if one subscribes to the notion that there is a
relationship between SES and social capital, one can see that a low SES student is
more likely to succeed at a community college than at a four-year institution. In
relationship to this particular study, this relationship is important as the research
participants will be drawn from community colleges that have traditionally served
lower SES students.
Program Policy and Organization
It has been argued that the policy of open access to higher education that has
been seen in the United States, threatens to force institutions to lower academic
standards to redress a perceived social inequality (Dougherty, 1997). In an effort to
prevent, or at least mitigate this possibility, some states have enacted policies that
place remedial education purely in the domain of the community colleges (Moss &
Yeaton, 2006). Thus, the community college is relegated to the position of
addressing the tensions between access and academic standards that may build
between constituents (Perin, 2006; Pitts, White & Harrison, 1999). This tension is
often played out in the decision-making that goes into the structuring of remedial
education programs and the policies set by governments.
In addition to policies that govern the behavior of an organization, its
structure further defines how it serves its constituents. A 2002 study conducted by

22
Joseph Berger compared the impact of organizational structures upon student
learning. This study was different from previous studies in that the objective was to
compare factors such as individual student grades and course outcomes to the
organization of the institution. Previous studies had focused on programmatic
outcomes and organizational structure (Berger, 2002). Based upon a five-
dimensional model of organizational structure rooted in Bolman and Deal’s (1984,
1991) organizational frameworks and Birnbaum’s (1988) college organization
model, Berger determined that three of the five dimensions negatively impacted
student learning. The five dimensions were: Bureaucratic, Collegial, Political,
Symbolic and Systematic.
The Bureaucratic and Political dimensions, which encompass administrative
hierarchies, regulations, internal competition for resources, had no statistical impact
upon student learning (Berger 2002). However, the Collegial, Symbolic and
Systematic dimensions did. First, the Collegial dimension is defined as the
relationship between the faculty and administrators at the institution. In cases where
the level of collegiality was very high student learning was negatively impacted.
Berger suggests that in such cases the students may begin to feel like outsiders in the
institution and not receive enough attention from the faculty and staff (Berger, 2002).
The second dimension to exhibit a negative student learning relationship was
the Symbolic Dimension. This dimension addressed the role of organizational
symbols in the form of myths, traditions, ceremonies and artifacts that “create
meaning within the organization” (Berger, 2002, p. 45). While the negative

23
association was relatively weak, Berger (2002) suggests that in schools that have a
high degree of symbolism, student competition and institutional perceptions of an
elite status may translate into lower scores that do not necessarily relate to decreased
knowledge attainment. The study of the final dimension, Systemic, showed that
institutions that focused more on factors external to the school also exhibited a
negative impact on student learning. This finding was in opposition to previous
studies that indicated that institutions that were entrepreneurial or market driven had
positive impacts on student learning. Berger (2002) suggests that this difference is
based on the two factors. First, that previous studies used organizational performance
data rather than individual student performance data to study this factor. Second,
institutions that place more of their resources into external developments may be
doing so at the expense of student support.
Structurally there are two primary models used by colleges (Boylan, Bliss &
Bonham, 1997). The first model, often termed centralized, is typified by the
formation of a specialized academic unit that houses all remedial education courses,
faculty and staff. The second model, variously termed decentralized or
mainstreamed, entails the remedial courses being housed in their academic
departments (Boylan, Bliss & Bonham, 1997; Perin, 2002). In such cases faculty
members often teach both remedial and regular college level courses. The relative
merits of both systems are often played out within the contexts of compliance with
government regulations and institutional ideologies (Shaw, 1997). Centralized
programs allow for more efficient use of faculty and support resources due to the

24
coherent nature of a department that is wholly responsible for remediation. While on
the other hand, mainstreamed remediation allows for faculty members who teach
remedial classes to also teach regular for-credit courses and thus maintain curricular
ties to their academic departments (Perin, 2002; 2005). Yet, according to Boylan,
Bliss and Bonham (1997), first year students in centralized remedial programs
exhibit higher first year GPAs and retention rates than students taking courses
through the mainstream model. But these results can be misleading. Boylan (1997)
surmises that these results may be more a factor of the unified student support
services that centralized remedial programs often offer rather than faculty or
curricular factors. However, one hurdle that both models have to overcome is the
negative reputation that remedial programs have amongst faculty (Perin, 2002).
From the policy perspective, variation in how programs are organized is
widespread amongst the states (Schults, 2000). Over the last decade legislative
initiatives have been put forth to address remediation from the standpoint of public
policy (Bettinger & Long, 2006). Evidence of this can be found in the policies
enacted in New York, Ohio, Tennessee and Virginia (Bettinger & Long, 2006;
Colbeck, 2002). In these states efforts have been made to limit the location of
remedial education to the community colleges. In fact, roughly 10 percent of higher
education institutions do not offer any remedial courses (Bettinger & Long, 2006).
Another aspect that typifies remedial education program organization and
policy is the use of placement tests. Most states require testing to assess the academic
abilities of incoming students, but variation in the uses of test scores to place

25
students into remedial courses is widespread (Perin, 2005a; Schults, 2000). This
variation is the result of institutional policies and the makeup of the student body
(Levin & Calcagano, 2008). Each institution will set a “cut off score” at which a
student will have to score above to place out of a remedial section. However,
depending on the institution a number of factors may allow the student to bypass the
remedial course (Levin & Calcagano, 2008; Perin, 2005a; Shaw, 1997).
Inconsistency of placement policy enforcement and subsequent misplacement into
courses, can lead to poor student achievement outcomes and decreases in student
persistence (Shaw, 1997).
Faculty and Administration
The role of the faculty in any remediation program cannot be understated.
Not only do they deliver the academic content, but they also set the tone for the
program and the students. Who teaches remedial education in the community
colleges and how does teaching remedial courses impact them? And what is the role
of the institution’s administration, and its relationships with the faculty?
Concern about the implication for faculty teaching academically
underprepared students has been a consistent concern voiced in the literature for the
past two decades (Pitts, White & Harrison, 1999). This has been in part driven by the
trend of opening access to higher education for anyone with a high school diploma or
a GED. From the faculty perspective, teaching underprepared students has caused a
number of dilemmas. In a study conducted by Pitt, White and Harrison (1999)
faculty members reported that pressure from underprepared students and

26
administrative policy threaten to cause a decrease in the academic standards of their
classes. This is in part because of the widely disparate skills that the students bring to
the class. Some faculty members would prefer to not teach remedial students.
Faculty Makeup
Who makes up the faculty and what are their impacts on student learning in
remedial education courses? As there is little research on community college faculty
and remedial faculty in particular, one must look outside of the literature specific to
remedial education to answer this question (Kisker & Outcalt, 2005). Additionally,
there is a paucity of literature specifically addressing perceptions held by faculty
members on remedial mathematics.
According to statistics published in 2008 by Provasnik and Planty for the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the Fall term of 2003 there were
approximately 360,000 faculty members teaching in the Nation’s community
colleges (Provasnik & Planty, 2008). Two-thirds of these faculty members held part
time positions. In contrast, only 42 percent of the faculty in four-year institutions
were part-time. In terms of academic qualifications this difference between two-year
and four-year institutions was even greater. Whereas 58 percent of four-year
instructors held terminal degrees only 12 percent of the instructors at the community
college level held the same credential. Additionally, 58 percent of the community
college faculties’ highest degree attainment was a Master’s, 18 percent were
Bachelor’s and 12 percent had less than a Bachelor’s degree. Ethnically, 84 percent
of the community college faculty members were White, seven percent were African

27
American, five percent Hispanic and three percent were Asian (Provasnik & Planty,
2008). Additionally, in terms of rank, 53 percent of the full-time faculty in the
community colleges held the rank of ‘Instructor’ with 25.9 holding no rank (Goan &
Cunningham, 2007).
In a report compiled for the American Association of Community College,
Schults (2000) reported that 33 percent of all instructors in the community colleges
taught at least one remedial course during an academic year. However, most of these
instructors also taught regular college level courses as well. Surprisingly, despite the
perceived stigma that teaching remedial courses may have for faculty members, most
remedial courses were taught by full-time faculty. This is supported by the figures
that indicate that approximately 75 percent of the faculty members in the community
college systems are part-time instructors (Provasnik & Planty, 2008; Twombly &
Townsend, 2008). However, these adjuncts only teach about 33 percent of the
courses offered each year (Twombly & Townsend, 2008).
According to Kisker and Outcalt (2005) remedial faculty in the community
colleges do exhibit a number of distinguishing characteristics. Namely, they are
much more likely to have taught in a secondary school setting than other instructors.
Additionally, it was found that remedial instructors were more likely to be African
American or Native American. The study did not explore the reasons for this, but
the authors speculated that it could be related to employment trends that show ethnic
minorities with greater representation in positions that are deemed less desirable.

28
Another factor that differentiates the community college faculty members
from their four-year college counterparts is the mission of the community college.
One could argue that institutional missions define faculty, administration and
programmatic interactions. While it would be a mistake to imply that all community
colleges have the same mission, there is a general theme that seems to run through
their statements. That is, the community college attempt to allow students access to
general and vocational education that can be used to attempt transfer to a four-year
institution or prepare them to enter the labor force (Dowd, 2003; 2007). This
complex and often contradictory mission can lead to conflict that has direct impact
upon the programs, students and faculty (Brewer, 1999). This conflict arises when
the expectations of the faculty, students and the community in which the institution
is set are not in alignment.
From the faculty perspective this conflict over the institutional mission may
begin during the faculty member’s own education and expectations at the time of
hire. Community College academic positions are seen as less desirable than those in
a four-year university and teaching in remedial programs is often seen as even less
academically prestigious and may impart a professional stigma that can be seen as a
detriment to one’s career (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Gahn & Twombly, 2001;
Perin, 2002). Thus, it is not inconceivable that personal attachment to the mission of
preparing students for transfer to four-year institutions may supersede other aspects
of the institutional mission. Additionally, Gahn and Twombly (2001) note that there
are now more Ph.D. graduates than there are tenure track positions in four-year

29
colleges, making positions at the community colleges a means by which prospective
faculty members can use their training. This potential influx of faculty members with
aspirations of positions in research universities cannot help but influence the
implementation of the community college mission. This potential for an increase in
the number of Ph.D. holding instructors should not lead one to believe that there are
not some who particularly seek out positions teaching remedial education.
Faculty Administration Relationship
One aspect of the faculty administration relationship that must be taken into
account is that which occurs when the institution undergoes a substantial
organizational change. Such changes can be related to finances, governance or
legislative influence. In her research on a small private religiously affiliated
institution, Castiglia (2006) determined that faculty members perceive their
institutions through two lenses of commitment. The first was a commitment to their
academic identity and how they imparted it to their students. The second was to the
institution as represented by the administration. The institution in question enacted
broad organizational changes that popular wisdom would have said would have
created poor job satisfaction levels. Research was conducted using a mixed
quantitative and qualitative instrument. The quantitative study used a battery of job
satisfaction and professional motivation tests derived from the business community.
Open-ended interviews were used for qualitative analysis. Interestingly the
researcher found that the quantitative satisfaction and motivation inventories proved
inconclusive until the qualitative data was incorporated.

30
Overall, Castiglia determined that institutional commitment, job satisfaction
and professional motivation of faculty members were derived from a separation of
the faculty members’ concept of commitment (2006). The findings indicated that
faculty commitment to their professions and their students may not be impacted
when the institution undergoes large scale change. Yet faculty commitment to the
institution itself may. What does this mean for institutions that implement or
struggle with implementing RE programs?
Conclusion
In summary, the student impacts of remedial education courses and programs
have a developed body of literature. As a transition point in the K-16 pipeline the
first two years of college, and in particular at the community college, is an important
period in the academic life of a student. The literature suggests that while students
who need remedial education may be at a disadvantage in terms of program
completion, the student who successfully completes remedial course work should
have nearly similar programmatic outcomes as his non-remedial peers. This is
particularly true of the student who requires remedial mathematics course work.
However, the literature on faculty and administrator factors in remedial
education is much slimmer. What research there is on faculty is mostly indirectly
related to remedial education. However, there were no studies found that directly
addressed how faculty viewed the success of remedial mathematics courses or
programs. The existing literature suggests those faculty members teaching remedial
education are mostly full-time instructors at their institutions, but may suffer from

31
stigmatization associated with their subject matter. Faculty members who teach both
mainstream courses as well as remedial do not suffer from this same categorization
due to their closer ties with their academic peers. Additionally, the literature on
faculty and administration relationships and its impact on teaching suggest that while
programmatic and mission related strife may hamper the relationship, faculty
commitment to student success remains unaffected. This study will focus on the
interplay of perceptions of mission and organization cohesion and their impacts on
remedial education in two Hawaii community colleges.

32
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
The review of prior research literature indicates that nationally 29 percent of
community college students require some level of remedial course work during the
first year of attendance (NCES, 2008). However, in Hawaii research has shown that
this group represents 43 percent of community college students (WPGC, 2007).
Despite evidence that successful completion of remedial course sequences increases
the likelihood of program completion to levels comparable to students not needing
remediation, those who do not complete remediation exhibit low persistence to
graduation rates (Attewell et. al, 2006). Additionally, faculty characteristics, such as
experience and status, have been found to impact their academic interactions with
students (Vogel, Burgstahler, Sligar & Zecker, 2006). This qualitative case study
examined faculty and administrators involved in remedial education in two
community colleges and the program characteristics that influence their perceptions
of program efficacy.
Research Questions
Specifically, this study attempted to answer to the following questions:
• How do institutional characteristics effect the development and
perceptions of remedial education programs at the community colleges?
How did these programs develop?
• What perceptions of program impact and effectiveness do the faculty and
administrators hold? Do these perceptions vary by personnel type?

33
Research Design
A qualitative methodology was selected for this study, as it was focused in
such a manner to inform the researcher on the perceptions of faculty and
administrators involved in remedial education at the community college level.
Creswell (2009) defines this methodology as a “means for exploring and
understanding the meaning individuals ascribe to a social or human problem” (p.4).
Quantitative studies, on the other hand, examine relationships between variables
through careful measurement, collection and statistical analysis (Creswell, 2009;
Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). Typically information used in quantitative analysis is
expressed in the form of numerically coded data that lend themselves to the use of
statistical manipulation. The intent of this study was to allow participants to describe
their involvement, and subsequent perceptions, in a manner that may be used to
better inform research and practice in higher education. Thus, an inductive analysis
of themes is better suited to the types of data that was generated in this study.
Additionally, as the sample size used for this study was limited, the qualitative
approach allowed for the participants to supply a degree of detailed information that
a quantitative study could not reliably garner from a similarly sized population
(Patton, 2002).
Creswell (1998) puts forth five traditional approaches to the qualitative study.
First, the biographical approach allows the participant to recount those parts of their
lives as they pertain to the research questions. Second, phenomenological research
attempts to understand the relationship between the meaning and structure of an

34
experience as shared by a group (Moustakas, 1994). Grounded theory, the third
approach, attempts to inductively connect and generate a theory based on multiple
samples of actions and processes as perceived by the participants (Patton, 2002).
Fourth, ethnography focuses on cultural groups through observations over a
protracted timeframe. The fifth and final approach is the Case Study. In this
approach the researcher programs, activities and individuals using multiple methods
(Stake, 1995). As this study sought to better understand the attitudes, behaviors and
perceptions of university participants in remedial education programs, the case study
approach was selected. This method enabled the researcher to combine analysis of
program documentation and participant interviews to illustrate how the members of
remedial programs perceive the efforts and place within higher education.
Population and Sample
Two institutions were selected for this qualitative case study: City
Community College (CCC) and Suburban Community College (SCC). Both
institutions are part of the University of Hawaii Community College System. All
University of Hawaii institutions are part of the state public education system and
receive funding and support from the state legislature. CCC has a student body of
approximately 7500 students (UH CCC, 2007). SCC approximate student population
is 1900 (UH SCC, 2007). The majority of students attending the state community
colleges are graduates of the public, secondary school system (WPGC, 2007).
CCC has had an established and distinct remedial education program since
the mid-1970’s whereas remedial courses at SCC are integrated and delivered as part

35
of individual academic departments scheduling. CCC’s general catalog indicates
that the institution offers 17 distinct math courses. Of these three are remedial. SCC
offers 18 math courses of which five are designated as remedial. Remedial courses
are designated with an identification number that is less than MATH 100. Such
courses do not apply credit toward degree or certificate completion. CCC employs
approximately eight full and part-time math instructors for remedial mathematics
compared to SCC’s six. Both institutions have historically used full-time as well as
adjunct instructors. Part of the intent of this study is to determine the use of adjuncts
in remedial education at these two institutions. It should be noted that owing to the
recent downturn in State revenues, and subsequent funding cuts to the UH system,
there is the possibility that fewer adjunct may be employed in the Fall 2009 semester
than may have been used in the past.
Purposeful sampling technique was used to select information rich
participants and sources. This approach “is aimed at [gathering] insight about the
phenomenon, not empirical generalization from a sample to a population” (Patton,
2002, p. 40). To this end, the names and contact information of remedial math
faculty and program administrators were obtained via the institution’s
administration.
The Dean of Arts and Sciences at SCC and the Dean of Student Affairs along
with the Chair of the Remedial Program at CCC agreed to provide introductions to
the math faculty and administrators in their institutions. The researcher sent email
and voice messages to all parties interested in participating in the study. Two faculty

36
members and an administrator from each institution agreed to be interviewed. No
adjunct faculty members responded to interview requests. The participants and
institutions have been given pseudonyms.
Instrumentation
This study employed two instruments to gather information from the
participants. The first was a pre-interview questionnaire designed to gather basic
information about the faculty and administrator participants. Completion of this
questionnaire took no more than 10 minutes. Examples of the information gathered
include: position (faculty or administration), full or part-time faculty status, tenure
status, number of years in current position, years of experience teaching or
administering remedial education, education concentration and willingness to
participate in the study.
The second instrument was a battery of semi-structured questions to be
delivered during the face-to-face interviews. The questions were developed by the
researcher and were designed to obtain participant perceptions about the remedial
mathematics program at their institution. Specifically, the questions were developed
to allow the interviewees to explain their roles and place within the institutional
climate and their perceptions of programmatic efficacy.
Both the pre-interview questionnaire and the interview questions were tested
through the use of a pilot study. Participants in the pilot included education doctoral
students and mathematics faculty members at institutions other than those that will
be studied.

37
Data Collection
Data collection was conducted in two phases. Both phases took place during
the Fall 2009 semester. Phase one entailed the gathering of programmatic
documentation. These documents will include; academic program reviews, State of
Hawaii and institutional polices and procedures and program completion data.
Additionally, information on how many sections were offered and how many
individual professors teaching in that term was gathered. This information was
gathered from the University of Hawaii public information websites as well as from
participants in the study.
In the second phase of the study initial contact was made with the potential
faculty and administration participants during the months of December and January.
The pre-interview questionnaire was administered to those potential participants who
express willingness to take part in the study (Appendix A). The researcher then
scheduled times and locations, on campus, for the in person interview to suit the
availability of the participant. The interviews generally took no more than 90
minutes to complete. Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their
participation and consent forms will be given to them for signature. The researcher
employed a question guide during the in-person interviews (Appendix B). Audio
recordings and written notes were made to document the interviews. All written and
audio interview data are stored in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s residence.
Since transcription into electronic format the data has been maintained on a
password-protected computer.

38
Data Analysis
Information gathered through the interviews was transcribed and returned to
the participant to validate accuracy. Personal identifying information was removed
and replaced with pseudonyms. In depth analysis of the data was conducted
according to the procedures outlined by Creswell (2009). In preparing the data the
researcher was able to develop a “general sense of the information and reflect on its
overall meaning” (Creswell, 2009). Finally, the researcher will analyze the emergent
themes in relationship to the study’s research questions.

39
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Overview
This chapter presents the findings of interviews conducted with faculty
members and administrators for Suburban Community College (SCC) and City
Community College (CCC). The findings are presented within the framework of the
research questions posed in Chapter One. The chapter is divided into four sections.
The first describes the two institutions’ approaches to remedial mathematics and the
characteristics of the individual participants. The subsequent two sections are divided
into the research questions and the corresponding interview questions used to elicit
the participants’ perceptions. The final section presents additional findings that
developed out of the interviews. The two research questions guiding this study are:
• How do institutional characteristics effect the development and
perceptions of remedial education programs at the community colleges?
How did these programs develop?
• What perceptions of program impact and effectiveness do the faculty and
administrators hold? Do these perceptions vary between faculty and
administrators?
Participant Institutions and Demographics
CCC has had an established and distinct remedial education program since
the mid-1970’s whereas remedial courses at SCC are integrated and delivered as part
of individual academic departments scheduling. CCC’s general catalog indicates

40
that the institution offers 17 distinct math courses. Of these three are remedial. SCC
offers 18 math courses of which five are designated as remedial. Remedial courses
are designated with an identification number that is less than MATH 100. Such
courses do not apply credit toward degree or certificate completion. CCC employs
approximately eight full and part-time math instructors for remedial mathematics
compared to SCC’s six. Both institutions have historically used full-time as well as
adjunct instructors. It should be noted that owing to the recent downturn in State
revenues, and subsequent funding cuts to the UH system, fewer adjunct were
employed in the Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 semesters than may have been used in
the past. No adjuncts agreed to take part in the study.
At the beginning of each interview all participants were given an overview of
the study and a brief demographic survey. There were two males and one female
from each institution. Experience in higher education ranged from two to 35 years.
University ranks included tenure track instructors through full tenured professors and
a Vice Chancellor (Table 1).

41
Table 1: Study participants

Name Institution Degrees
Yrs
Teaching
Math in
Higher
Ed
Yrs
Teaching
Remedial
Math
Rank/
Position
# of
Section
per
year
# of
Remedial
Section
per year
Area Of
Admin
Responsibility Gender Ethnicity
Robert SCC
BA,
MA,
EdD
NA NA
Vice
Chancellor
NA NA
Student
Affairs
Male Hawaiian
Paul SCC BS, MS 10 2.5
Instructor/
Tenure Track
5 4 NA Male Indian
Christine SCC
BEd,
MS,
MED
35 30
Professor/
Tenured
12-Oct 10-Feb
Math Dept
Coordinator
Female NA
John CCC
BA,
MFA
23 non-
math
NA
Prof/Tenured/
Program
Chair
NA NA
Remedial
Prog Chair
Male Hawaiian
Mark CCC BS, MS 2 1
Instructor/
Tenure Track
9 9 NA Male
Asian
American
Linda CCC BA, MS 7 7
Assoc.
Prof/Tenured
6 6
PCM
Coordinator
Female NA

42
Research Question One Findings
The purpose of the first research question was to determine what
characteristics impact the development and perceptions of remedial mathematics
programs. One such defining characteristic of an organization is its mission
statement. Participants were asked about their knowledge of the institution’s mission
statement and how they perceived remedial math education within that framework.
Only one out of the six respondents was able to quote the mission statement.
However, all were familiar enough with its intent to answer the question.
Two themes emerged as a consequence of asking about the missions. While
all respondents agreed that remedial education did have a place within the missions,
the nature of that relationship was slightly different for some of them. The
administrators from both institutions and one of the CCC faculty members felt
strongly that the mission of the institution and the RE program was to “ensure
student success.” In terms of the remedial education program, this lent support to
their efforts to use resources for the betterment of that success.
The second theme that emerged was from the CCC Program Chair, John, and
one of his faculty members. This theme harkens to the idea that the community
college is an egalitarian place that will accept all students. An ‘open door’ policy as
it were. The CCC administrator put it eloquently,
[Community Colleges are] this crazy bold experiment that no one shot down.
And it is one thing I love about America. It is this idea of an open door. Sign
your name and take your chances sort of thing. It’s just beautiful. Everybody
has a chance to succeed. Come in here and [work hard] and we will try our
best to help you succeed.

43
In short, all respondents believed that institutional missions adequately
address the need for remedial education and provided a framework for institutional
support. All respondents but one felt that the missions of their institutions were
consistent with their beliefs and philosophies on educating students. The one
participant who did not reply in kind chose not to answer the question.
A common characteristic of both programs was the use of a common
placement test. All students in the University of Hawaii system institutions must take
a placement test before enrolling in mathematics and English courses. The
COMPASS placement test is used throughout the UH system of four year and two
year institutions. The use of this test is a mandatory component of the curriculum
offered at all institutions in the system and is a characteristic that engenders a certain
amount of debate.
Four out of the six respondents felt that in general the COMPASS placement
test was a usable tool that was acceptable. However, the level of its effectiveness
was in dispute. Three out of the four faculty members felt that the COMPASS test
was a useful tool. One CCC faculty member, Mark, felt that its major shortcoming
was that it was easier for students to be misplaced into higher-level sections than
lower. However, he felt that the margin of error was within an acceptable range.
Linda, his colleague at CCC, felt that the test was not an accurate tool because it
does not allow for students to differentiate their separate mathematics skills in a
manner that could better place them. This faculty member also attributed the low
validity of the test to the lack of student preparedness to take it. Additionally, the test

44
did not seem to be able to distinguish students at the extreme low end of the
spectrum.
Of all the respondents, the CCC Program Chair expressed the strongest
opinions against the COMPASS test. His objections were not only for mathematics
placement but for English placement as well. He felt that the test has no real
diagnostic capability to it. Only the students’ final answers to the specific questions
are recorded. John felt that if the work the student did to generate an answers were
reviewed, the student may be better placed. Additionally, he felt that students
needed greater access to re-take the test and have more resources for preparation. He
pointed to an unofficial statistic that showed that students who retook the COMPASS
test were 50% as likely to place into a higher section than when they first placed.
The CCC Program Chair’s comments were in stark contrast to those made by
his counterpart, Robert at SCC.
I do not agree that it is not a good tool. Because so many students have used
it. All of California’s [community college system] uses it, so there is a great
deal of data for that test. I just had to go to one meeting with ACT and they
showed that they gave the test to some HUGE number of students. It has to
have accuracy. Now whether it meets the needs of our students? I would say
no.

This last statement seems to go to the heart of the debate over standardized
placement testing at the community colleges in Hawaii. The 2007 White Paper
Group on remedial education identified a number of problems with the use of the
COMPASS test. Chief among them were inconsistencies in policy and execution
between the community colleges in the system. These inconsistencies made it nearly

45
impossible for them to study COMPASS in relation to its use. What was found was
that students needed greater preparation for the test and advising after taking it.
Additionally, some Community Colleges allowed students to re-take the test after
shorter intervals of time. The WPG also recommended that additional diagnostic
testing be used in conjunction with the COMPASS test. This recommendation seems
to be universally held by all participants in this study. Issues surrounding the use of
COMPASS as a means to place students seem to be integral to any discussion of the
development of remedial mathematics programs at the community colleges.
When queried on what recourse was available to students who professors felt
were misplaced respondents’ answers varied widely. Overall, the faculty and
administrator participants in the study felt that there was some level of process
available to them to change the placement of students if the COMPASS test did not
prove accurate. However, each of the three respondents at the two intuitions studied
essentially gave different answers to this question.
While the faculty members at SCC were aware of a process to change student
placement only Christine, the more experienced instructor understood the actual
process. However, the steps normally undertaken seem to be more a factor of her
knowledge of how to move around the system. The newer faculty member was
aware that something was in development but did not know exactly what it was or
when it would go into operation. “I think it goes into effect next term” Paul stated.
Interestingly, the SCC Vice Chancellor stated that there was a formal process in
place that the mathematics faculty had developed as part of Achieving the Dream.

46
At CCC, the community college with the centralized system, the disparity in
comments was the most notable. The administrator described a process that was
based more on his leadership style and relationships with individual faculty members
than on his use of the policies and systems the program had in place. The two faculty
members also described completely different practices. Mark, the newest
mathematics faculty member in the department, takes the advising burden upon
himself and tries to give the students advice on their options. Mark will go so far as
introducing the student to instructors teaching sections he believes are more
appropriate to the student’s knowledge or abilities. Linda, however, sees this more
as a situation wherein she does not have the level of control or authority over policy
making and practice than she may want.
At SCC both instructors expressed the idea that the actual movement of
students into different courses was very difficult. Also, they did not seem to believe
that it was necessarily appropriate to do so and that, as Paul explained “we normally
don’t like to do this.” Christine, the senior faculty member expressed it this way,
Even if it is just a matter of rusty skills, the courses are not any less valuable
to the [students] because they are still casting off the rust from other
materials. It is more the other way around. Sometimes a student is placed in
that class but their prerequisite skills have more holes than anticipated and
they are struggling. Especially if they are placed using COMPASS. It is not
like a diagnostic test that tells us what skills they have or not.

This opinion implies that the faculty at SCC have the perception that despite the
possibility of a student being misplaced by the COMPASS test, there is still value to
the student to remain in the course to which they were originally placed. This seems

47
to revolve around the impression that student’s skills are not wholly measured by
COMPASS in relation to the curriculum offered at the institution.
In contrast to SCC, faculty members at CCC are empowered to change a
student’s course assignment. This question also elicited a response from the more
senior faculty member at CCC that indicated that the separation of remedial
mathematics from the academic department has caused some confusion as to what
options are available.
In addition to seeking to gather information on perceptions regarding the
actual function of remedial mathematics at the institutions, interview questions for
Research Question One were designed to elicit responses pertaining to how
institutions prepared and maintained professor’s skills and knowledge of teaching
remedial mathematics. All of the faculty members and the Program Chair at CCC
stated that there was no initial professional development for incoming instructors
teaching remedial courses. The SCC Vice Chancellor, while not expressing that it
existed, felt that this type of training was administered through the academic
departments. Yet, administrators had made available training and funds through the
Achieving the Dream initiative to address this. And while some faculty and as well
as an academic dean had participated he felt that the lack of adequate instructor
training was part of the problem because faculty tend to “stick to what they have
always known.”
The administrator at CCC reflected a similar attitude yet felt somewhat
empowered to do something about it. Because he is in charge of the entire remedial

48
program at his institution, he is in a position to affect the types of faculty that are
hired. In his general comments during the interview, he expressed that it was his
desire to hire mathematics instructors whose degrees were not in pure mathematics.
He wanted to hire faculty members who had bachelor’s degrees in math and masters
in teaching mathematics. However, he felt that such new hires would have some
difficulty being recognized as equals by their faculty peers. The SCC administrator
also expressed an interest in hiring remedial education experts but anticipated similar
issues.
The separation between faculty and administrators at SCC began to become
clearer with the discussion of ongoing professional development. Both faculty
members felt that continuing professional development was available to them.
However, it appears that most of what is made available is through the community
college system rather than from the college itself. Additionally, training that is
available tends not to focus on pedagogy but on programmatic and curricular issues.
Herein lies part of the division between the faculty and administration perceptions.
The SCC administrator felt that there should be greater emphasis on teaching skills.
Not just on redesigning the curriculum.
Faculty members at CCC have access to much of the same professional
development opportunities as those at SCC. However, they seem much more open to
the value of attendance. John, the more junior faculty member stated that:
I have not had a semester yet where they have not sent me to some type of
conference. There was an NCAT (National Center for Academic
Transformation) conference in Tennessee that was about curriculum design in

49
general. Not just math. That was my introduction into the model we are
moving into. We are moving away from the traditional and into an adjusted
emporium model. Sending me there was their way of getting me into the
redesign project. It gave me a chance to get to know the model and develop
my own ideas about it. They also sent me to the Achieving the Dream
initiative we are a part of. This opened my eyes to [the fact] that we are not
alone and we have places to ask for help

The excitement exhibited by this faculty member was not as evident in the professor
who had been at the college for many years. She felt that the economic climate had
impacted the budget to such an extent that fewer faculty members had the
opportunity to attend training. Despite this opinion the CCC administrator had stated
that of all the departments in the college, his was the only one that had not been
subject to budget cuts. In fact, his department had received grants in excess of four
million dollars. During the interview evidence of spending was clearly visible in the
extensive construction and upgrades that were taking place in and around the facility
housing the remedial education program. In answering this line of interview
questions, participants further developed a theme of characteristics that inform
Research Question One’s purpose. That is, Faculty members valued training in
curriculum re-design where as administrators wanted to promote more development
in teaching methods.
One of the more concrete examples one could point to, as defining an
organization or program is the policies under which they must operate. In this regard
there was a rare agreement between all respondents. Uniformly they all stated that
there were no State or community college system policies that directly impacted
remedial education at the institutions. In effect, the only requirement was that they

50
offered remedial courses. How it is done is at the discretion of the institution. This
dearth of policy specific to remedial education seemed to extend to policies created
by the institutions themselves. Only two respondents were able to identify policies
that impacted them. The CCC administrator pointed to policies related to Human
Resources while one of the faculty members at that same institution mentioned that
professors were not given the authority to drop non-attending students from the class
roster. Interestingly, none of the respondents recognized that the use of the
COMPASS test was mandated by University of Hawaii policy.
Perceptions pertaining to administrative support for the teaching of remedial
mathematics students illuminated a distinct difference of opinion between the faculty
at both institutions and their administrators. The faculty uniformly felt that the
administration was supportive of their needs. At SCC the faculty felt that they were
insulated from budget cuts and had not been impacted in how they taught their
classes. Faculty interviewees from CCC also felt that the administration was
supportive of their efforts to be innovative. They noted that this support of
innovation might be causing problems with outside college level administrators.
This feeling of support was not reciprocated by the SCC and CCC
administrators. While they did not feel that their faculty was supportive of their
concerns as program managers, their reasons were very different.
Robert the SCC administrator pointed to two factors. First, he felt that the
instructors at his institution looked at students in remedial courses as being no
different from students taking non-remedial courses. He suggested that his

51
instructors did not see remedial students as needing any sort of special attention.
Second, he felt that the faculty were “not concerned at all really” about pressures on
administrators when it came to supporting efforts in remediation.
The administrator of the centralized program at CCC felt that the lack of
support was more a factor of his leadership than a characteristic of the faculty. He
stated that his,
Vision it too big for them. The [faculty] want to ratchet it down. They do not
want to aim for an increase in success from 40% to 80%. They want to go
from 40% to 43% first. I think 50% is doable. We are measuring in a new
way to. Which the faculty do not like.

Yet another defining characteristic of an academic institution is the
relationship between the faculty members and the administration. The faculty at
CCC did not want to answer questions on this topic. One because he felt that he was
too new to the institution to comment. The other because she was uncomfortable
with the question. However, their administrator, taking the introspective route, may
have given the answer for them all:
My problem is that I don’t share enough. And I tend to be on my own and
thinking I am communicating [while I am not]. It’s my greatest weakness. I
seem to have lost some trust with the faculty because of this. But sometimes I
infringe on their pedagogy. Which I respect as I am a teacher too.

The relationship at SCC was harder to quantify. On one hand the administrator felt
that the relationship was quite poor. He pointed to political tensions between faculty
committees and the administration. However, when asked about the relationship
between lower level, individual administrators he felt that the relationship was
cordial. The SCC faculty on the other had seemed to have a better view of the

52
relationship. They both pointed to the newness of the executive leadership of the
college as a source of difficulty as well as an opportunity.
Building upon the questions on faculty and administrator relationships,
participants in the study were asked questions to bring out their perceptions on the
relationships between remedial faculty and administrators with remedial
responsibilities. One of the differences between a centralized and de-centralized
remedial education system was highlighted in this line of questioning.
Specifically, the SCC faculty could not differentiate between the frontline
administrators who worked with them on remedial issues from the administration as
a larger body. Yet, while the faculty respondents felt the relationship was the same
as in the previous question about the admin/faculty relationship, the SCC Vice
Chancelor characterized it as “strong and healthy.” He pointed to the seniority of the
counselors as being key to the relationship. SCC has 10 faculty and staff members
who hold the highest level of rank in the university’s tenure system. Four of these
personnel are counselors who work with the remedial students and faculty. The
remainder are faculty members. One of who participated in this study.
Here the CCC faculty was happy to discuss the relationship. The fact that the
remedial program is separated both physically and administratively from the rest of
the college seems to have promoted a closeness and esprit de corps not seen in the
SCC model. The faculty/administrator relationship is pivotal to gaining an insight
into the characteristics that effect the developmental programs at these institutions.

53
Research Question Two Findings
Research Question Two was designed to allow participants to express their
opinions and beliefs about the success of the students who take remedial
mathematics at their institutions. The responses illustrate a fundamental difference in
how faculty and administrators define success. Three out of the four faculty
members, Paul, Christine and Mark, felt that their students generally did well in the
sequence of remedial courses but looked at it in terms of success in one course at a
time. SCC faculty pointed to student attributes such as motivation as being the
primary indicator of student success. “I feel like once the students get going then a
lot of failure [is because of] lack of motivation” Paul said. Only Linda, the more
senior faculty member at CCC was aware of the statistics showing the poor pass
rates of students in the remedial sequence.
The administrators on the other hand, had a generally poor outlook on student
success in the remedial math sequences. Both administrators felt that the faculty does
not believe the evidence that shows that 70% to 75% of all of their students are
failing. When presented to the faculty and administrators this data has caused debates
over administrative infringement upon faculty members’ academic freedom and
pedagogy.
Perceptions of student success were further explored in interview questions
focused on Research Question Two by asking participants about the transfer of
students to four-year colleges. However, only the SCC administrator, Robert, was
fully versed in the statistics. He knew that as an institution SCC students transferred

54
to four-year colleges at a greater rate then the other community colleges in the state
system. However, students who placed into remedial courses in mathematics seem
to fair only a little better than the national averages. Interestingly enough, SCC’s
students requiring remediation in both Mathematics as well as English historically do
better than the state and national averages. There was no explanation for this. This
emergent theme of multiple deficiencies is discussed in a separate section.
John the CCC Program Chair has taken a completely different view on this
topic. He has made a conscious decision to focus on helping remedial students
complete their sequences and “transferring” into the second year at the community
college. At this point the student would be determined a success.
Interestingly, the junior professors, Paul and Mark, at both institutions did not
feel they could answer this question. They stated that their time at the institutions
was too short to make a judgment and that they had not seen the data. The more
experience faculty answered this question in two different ways.
SCC professor Christine answered the question by talking about how the
pedagological approach to teaching math at the community college was different
than at four-year universities. Students often had trouble transitioning and working
within a new framework of expectations “so they end up shifting [to degrees] that do
not need as much math.” Linda from CCC was confident that the students she taught
were successful in mathematics courses in four-year institutions because of the
methods and approaches used in her classrooms.

55
Responses to Research Question Two questions about the perceptions of
value and impact on students, attributed to remedial faculty by their academic peers
and their institutions were varied. Only Paul the junior faculty member at SCC felt
that his peers and the institution valued his work in remedial mathematics as a whole.
The three other faculty members had mixed perceptions of their value by other
faculty. This was particularly true of the senior faculty member at CCC. She
expressed frustration over the amount of administrative work she had done over the
years as a coordinator of one of the remedial sections. Additionally she found the
few meetings she attended with the math department useless and ego driven. There
was a noted lack of collegiality.
The faculty members at SCC did not feel that other faculty members or the
administration valued them any differently because they taught remedial
mathematics. This may primarily a result of the fact that with the exception of one
fulltime faculty member, SCC’s entire math faculty teaches remedial classes from
time to time. The one exception was a recent hire whose main purpose is to teach
remedial sections.
CCC’s faculty felt that there was a distinct stigma associated with those who
exclusively teach remedial courses. This could be felt from the math professors in
the academic department as well as from faculty members at the neighboring four-
year colleges. In fact one CCC faculty member felt that the academic department
used their administrative separation as a means to assign blame for poor student
outcomes. This feeling of stigmatization by his faculty members concerned the

56
Program Chair. He stated that in all of his dealing with other departments he has had
to defend his faculty, staff and program vigorously.
Questions on the effectiveness portion of Research Question Two relating to
the sequence of remedial mathematics courses highlighted once again the differences
in point of view between faculty and administrators. Both administrators felt that the
sequence of remedial math courses was ineffective. The data that has been collected
is too compelling for them to think otherwise. Yet, the faculty members felt that the
sequence and curriculum, while needing improvement, still provides the students
with opportunities for success. The faculty fall into two basic camps when it comes
to how to make remedial mathematics at their colleges better. The junior faculty
members espouse a realignment of the curriculum. Both feel that there is too much
content overlap between the various courses in remedial math. This causes students
to become bored and increases the amount of time they need to complete the
sequence. The more senior member of the SCC faculty shares the commitment to
experimenting with now models for the remedial courses but also feels that student
motivation and extracurricular responsibilities are equally to blame for poor student
success.
Additional Findings
Multiple Deficiencies
Four participants brought up the issue of multiple deficiencies. Robert, the
Vice Chancellor at SCC reported that whereas most students in the state community
college system who placed into remedial math and English had even poorer

57
outcomes than students with only one deficiency, such students at his institution
performed better than students with deficiencies in only one subject area. He had no
explanation for this. In reviewing the transcripts for the interviews Paul and Christine
from SCC and Mark from CCC also addressed this problem. Christine and Mark
agreed that this double deficiency made the study of mathematics even harder for the
student. Difficulty in understanding word problems and instructions interfered with
the student ability to concentrate on the math concepts. However, Paul from SCC
was in disagreement. He felt that math was symbolic and universal and did not
require advanced language skill. He pointed to international students with poor
English skills as an example of how a language barrier did not get in the way of
learning math.
High School Mathematics Requirements
A near universal belief held by administrators and faculty who participated in
this study was that students coming out of the Hawaii public school system did not
take enough mathematics courses. In fact, it was widely held that students could
choose not to take math during their senior years in high school. This practice was
seen as a potential reason for poor scores on the COMPASS placement test and the
high demand for remedial mathematics courses.
Summary of Findings
This chapter provided an account of the faculty and administrator perceptions
on the characteristics and efficacy of remedial mathematics programs at Suburban

58
Community College and City community College. From the two research questions
six themes emerged:
1. Student placement with COMPASS
2. Professional Development for faculty
3. Policies at the State, System and Institutional levels
4. Support to and from faculty and administration and their relationships
with each other
5. Defining programmatic success
6. Faculty stigmatization and value
Chapter Five provides a discussion of the findings and their implications for
future practice in higher education.

59
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Background of the Problem
Study of the data derived from the National Educational Longitudinal Study,
has garnered information on the state of remedial and developmental course work in
the post-secondary environment. In the research literature on remedial education
there is little evidence pertaining to the perceptions on the part of faculty and
administrators and the role that they play in the efficacy of programs. Owing to this
lack of research, educators responsible for remedial courses or programs do not have
an understanding of the interplay of faculty and administrator roles and how they
will impact student performance. This lack of understanding is an important gap to
be addressed because program design and effectiveness cannot be adequately
evaluated if an institution does not understand how its personnel operate within the
culture of the institution and specifically within a program or discipline.
To address this gap this study attempted to answer the following research
questions:
• How do institutional characteristics effect the development and
perceptions of remedial education programs at the community colleges?
How did these programs develop?
• What perceptions of program impact and effectiveness do the faculty and
administrators hold? Do these perceptions vary between faculty and
administrators?

60
Discussion of Findings
Student Placement with COMPASS
The first of the six themes derived from this study revolved around the use of
the COMPASS placement test and the subsequent difficulties that can arise from
misplacement. Additionally, difficulties pertaining to post placement clarification of
student ability were identified. The findings presented in this study support the
conclusions of the 2007 White Paper Group Committee that studied remedial
education in the Hawaii Community College system. That group found that the
inconsistencies in implementation and administration of the COMPASS test added to
the difficulties faced by the community colleges to properly place and advise their
students. Furthermore, pre-college preparation to take math placement tests was not
existent to the degree needed for students to do well on the test. Both of the
community colleges in this study have made an effort to reach out to the public
schools in their areas to expose students to the test. However, despite internal as well
external changes to preparation for the COMPASS test offered to students, scores do
not seem to be increasing. Unfortunately the colleges continue to have difficulty in
compiling data to measure student progress.
Subsequent to a student’s placement by COMPASS problems exist in how to
handle students who exhibit signs of misplacement. Each institution deals with such
scenarios in a different manner. While faculty at the college with a decentralized
remedial program are inclined to keep a student in the course they were officially
placed into, the faculty at the other institution have no problems in attempting to

61
rectify the situation themselves. This may be a particular strength of the centralized
model, as faculty and students in remedial education are collocated in a single
facility and therefore have increased opportunities to interact outside of the
classroom. However, faculty and administrators at both of the studied institutions
recognized the problem and are attempting to redefine the curriculum structures to
allow students to progress through the remedial math sequence with less reliance on
the placement test. The differences between the responses from faculty and
administrator groups, and indeed amongst the groups themselves, highlights a
fundamental mismatch between how faculty and administrators define their
perceptions of the programs. According to Berger (2002) this systemic difference is
not necessarily a problem for student performance. However, in this case is seems
that the faculty/administrator relationship is out of step with the community college
system’s goals.
In their book First, Break All The Rules, Buckingham and Coffman (1999)
propose that in any organization the mission statement provides a stable institutional
meaning and should help tighten employees’ focus. The strategy of achieving that
mission is merely the means by which it is executed. In the case of the two
institutions studied, there is not lack of understanding or application to institutional
missions. It is the lack of a clearly defined strategy that seems to be the problem.
Professional Development for Faculty
Faculty and administrator perceptions on professional development do not
differ significantly. All participants recognize that no initial training is offered to

62
new faculty. Any that does take place is informal and based on personal
relationships between the faculty. For the most part this assistance takes the form of
informal mentorship and the sharing of syllabi. While the faculty interviewed did not
seem to be much concerned about this, the administrators felt that the lack of training
in pedagogy is a significant shortcoming. Only one faculty member suggested that
all new math instructors should take one course in teaching mathematics. The types
of training the faculty seemed most interested in were in curriculum design and
program modifications.
This difference in perception of what a faculty member needs in order to
increase student achievement indicates that administrators determine a program’s
success through measuring teaching behaviors as well as program design. Faculty
members, on the other hand, seem more concerned with student behaviors and
curriculum design.
Policies at the State, System and Institutional Levels
While this question did not gather a great deal of material, it was clear that
neither institution had any overarching policies to guide them. When taken in
conjunction with the amount of variation in their perceptions on support,
empowerment and expectations, one can infer that a lack of unity prevents the two
groups of faculty and administrators from identifying with each other.
Support to and from the Faculty and Administration and their relationships with
each other

63
This theme is perhaps the most difficult to understand. The faculty members
seem to have difficulty in differentiation between their relationships with their direct
remedial colleagues in the administration and with the institution as a whole. This
can also be said of the responses from the CCC Program Chair. Such relationships in
the higher education setting are often fraught with political rifts and conflicting
opinions. However, on the whole the faculty felt supported by the institution.
Interestingly, it was the administrators that felt that they did not receive enough
understanding and support from the faculty. One could argue that this differentiation
is a matter of the perspective that the two camps hold. The faculty members who
took part in this study looked at such factors of support, achievement and
effectiveness in terms of how they taught their own students while administrators
took the macro view of how students progress through their program of study.
Defining Programmatic Success
This theme directly addressed the second research question in this study.
Most of the faculty members who participated expressed little knowledge of the
actual success of their students. This is surprising in that both campuses are
participants in the Achieving the Dream initiative. This initiative is rooted in data
driven decision making, so it is difficult to imagine that the faculty do not know that
the majority of their students do not succeed in their academic pursuits. Yet, their
responses indicate that they continue to measure success through their own direct
observation of their own students. This outlook is diametrically opposed to the data
gathered and disseminated by the administrators. Such divergence in perception can

64
only be explained by the idea that faculty do not see the larger institutional vision.
Despite universal understanding of the institutional missions neither group, faculty or
administrator, seem to be able to reconcile their differences.
Faculty Stigmatization and Sense of Value
Responses that developed this theme support the assertions found in the
literature, that teaching of remedial courses imparts a stigma upon the instructor
career (Deil-Amen & Rosenbaum, 2002; Gahn & Twombly, 2001; Perin, 2002).
Interestingly, the faculty members at SCC, where remedial education is distributed
through the academic departments, exhibited the least sense of stigmatization.
Additionally, all but one of the faculty interviewed, expressed either mixed or
negative perceptions of how they were valued outside their department or institution
by other faculty members. Despite their apparent higher degree of perceived
stigmatization, the professors at CCC also expressed a greater association with the
mission of offering remedial education to their students.
Summary of Findings
This study attempted to answer two main research questions. First, how do
institutional characteristics effect the development and perceptions of remedial
education programs at the community colleges? Second, what perceptions of
program impact and effectiveness do faculty and administrators hold? And do these
perceptions vary between faculty and administrators?
Information gathered through the interviews lead this researcher to believe
that there are a number of characteristics at play in the Hawaii community colleges

65
that impact remedial education programs. First, and perhaps foremost, a lack of
clearly defined policies detailing program and instructor expectations creates an
environment prone to diverse and disparate ideas of what should be expected of a
program. This can be seen in the entirely different approaches to student placement
and movement at two institutions that should have the same rules. In this sense, the
two community colleges studied behave as if they were not related to each other at
all. How did this system develop? The documentation available makes this hard to
determine. Historically the community colleges were give wide latitude to conduct
their internal operations as they saw fit. Yet, they all operate under what one would
expect to be a set of defined system rules. This does not appear to be the case. There
is a lack of clarity from the system level.
There are two basic perceptions on the effectiveness of remedial education
programs at these two institutions. The faculty take the micro view. They define
effectiveness in terms of how they perceive the success of their own students. Their
apparent belief that their programs work is belied by their quest to innovate and
improve their models for remedial offerings. This quest for innovation is most
prevalent amongst the newer faculty members and in CCC’s centralized remedial
education program. The administrators on the other hand know that their programs
do not work. Yet while the administrator at SCC attempts to influence the faculty to
look at the data and explore external points of view, the CCC administrator has made
a conscious decision to look inward and change the nature of the definition of
success to be the ‘transfer’ of students to the second year of the community college.

66
One could argue that these differences could be defined as attitudinal differences at
their core. The literature has shown us that faculty members often define their
success and measure their self worth in terms of how they feel their students receive
their teaching. Administrators do not tend to have this degree of direct connection
with students and therefore use more quantitative, and perhaps, less personal
measures. It is a difference that is rooted in how they perceive their worlds.
Implications for Practice
While seemingly few in number, this study has presented problems that could
profoundly impact the practice of offering remedial education programs in the
community colleges.
First, the centralized and decentralized models for remedial education are
producing effectively the same results. While the faculty in the centralized model
may feel a greater affinity for what they do, a sense of isolation and stigmatization
may be impacting the moral of the more experienced instructors. However, this
model potentially allows for easier acceptance of innovation. Yet, in the
decentralized model the faculty does not feel the same sense of isolation. By being
part of their academic departments they are in a better position to include their
faculty peers in program development and change that could potentially have wider
institutional support.
The second major implication for practice is a matter of dissimilar visions
and expectations. This boils down to a problem of communication of institutional
values and performance. This dissimilarity is most visible in how administrators and

67
faculty view program success. It is nearly inconceivable that both groups do not both
see the same data showing their students performance. Yet, administrators and
faculty are not able to rectify their macro and micro views.
The third implication for practice is a continuation of problems with the
placement of students in remedial mathematics courses that was first identified by
the systems White Paper Group (2007). While faculty and administrators recognize
that the COMPASS placement tool has weaknesses, there is no unified effort to
address the limitations.
One could argue that all three of these implications are a factor of the
University of Hawaii System’s lack of formal policies that define remedial
mathematics education. It is the lack of a formal framework of policy that allows for
each institution to develop and perpetuate diverse practices that should be focused on
the same end: student achievement. The ramifications of this environment potentially
extend to all seven of the community colleges in the state, not merely the two studied
here.
Additionally, the diverse situations described in the two community colleges
in this study present challenges to a number of stakeholders in the community
college system. At the institutional and system level, leaders do not have a unified
means of expressing expectations to the faculty and staff. In turn, the faculty and
staff are unsure of their situation. In an environment of shared faculty and
administrator governance, a vision with a certain amount of unity is needed to
prevent divergent goals.

68
Until these factors are addressed it is not likely that a new, third model for
remedial education will take root at either institution.
Limitations
This student was limited in a number of significant ways. The first was the
number of faculty and administrators willing to take part in the study. The
researcher was an outsider to the institutions and had to rely on personal and
professional connections to gain access to potential subjects. As an outsider, who
worked at what is sometimes considered a competing institution, potential
participants may have felt little inclination or value in participating. Of a potential
pool of 30 or more individuals only six consented to participate. Of particular note,
was the lack of adjunct involvement. One can only speculate, but this researcher’s
experience with adjuncts leads him to believe that they felt trepidation in
participating lest they expressed a view that could endanger their future employment
by an institution. Additionally this study only looked at two of the seven community
colleges in the state of Hawaii. This scarcity of participants limits the generalizability
of the findings.
Future Research
This study has identified the potential for a much larger scale study. The use
of a qualitative approach has allowed for a limited richness in gathering faculty and
administrators experiences and perceptions. Building upon this study one should
consider a broader effort from within the institutions themselves. This study could be

69
expanded through a longitudinal study of faculty and administrators during a time of
change.
Another important area for future research is the lack of curricular alignment
between the state university system and the Department of Education. The great need
for remedial mathematics courses indicate that what is taught in the K-12 setting is
not what students need when they enter college. The question of which standard
should be used needs to be addressed in order to make student achievement
meaningful for their ambitions in life.
Conclusion
Data from across the nation indicates that students are entering college with
academic deficiencies that endanger their ability to succeed in higher education.
Additionally, recent political discourse has shifted attention to the fact that the
United States no longer dominates the world in creating an educated workforce.
Combined with the climbing costs of education the nation is threatened with the
prospect of a further diminution of an egalitarian society where anyone can go to
college. Remedial Education is one route through the educational pipeline.

70
REFERENCES
ACT. (2007). Institutional data file for 2007. Iowa City, IA: Retrieved January 15,
2009, from http://www.act.org/path/policy/reports/retain.html

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance
patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved on November 12, 2008 from:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf

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

Astin, A. (1998). “Higher Education and Civic Responsibility.” Paper presented at
the American Council on Education’s Conference on Civic Roles and
Responsibilities, Washington, DC. June 19, 1998.

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina T., & Levey, T. (2006). New Evidence on College
Remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 77, No. 5, p. 886-924.

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

Bahr, P. (2008b). Does Mathematics Remediation Work?: A Comparative analysis
of Academic Attainment among Community College Students, Research in
Higher Education, Vol. 49, p. 420-450, DOI 10.1007/s11162-008-9089-4

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

Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W. & 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.

71
Berger, J. B. (2002). The Influence of the Organizational Structures of Colleges and
Universities on College Student Learning. Peabody Journal of Education,
77(3), 40-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493275

Bettinger, E., & 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.

Boylan, H., Bliss, L., and Bonham, B. (1997). Program Components and Their
Relationship to Student Performance. Journal of Developmental Education,
Vol. 20, No. 3, Retrieved May 16, 2009 from
http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/reserve_reading/program_components.html

Boylan, H., Bonham, B., & Tafari, G. (2005). Evaluating the Outcomes of
Developmental Education. New Directions for Institutional Research, Vol.
125, p. 59-72.

Boylan, H. R., and Saxon, D. P. An Evaluation of Developmental Education in Texas
Colleges and Universities. Austin, Tex.: Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, 1998.

Breneman, D., and Haarlow, N. (1998). Remediation in Higher Education: A
Symposium. Fordham Report

Brewer, D. J. (1999). How Do Community College Faculty View Intitutional
Mission? An Analysis of National Survey Data. Retrieved May 25, 2009,
from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet
?accno=ED440695.

Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All The Rules. New York, NY:
Simon & Schuster.

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

Castiglia, B. (2006). The Impact of Changing Culture in Higher Education on the
Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitments
of College Faculty. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal. 10(2), 23.

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

72
Colbeck, C. L. (2002). State Policies to Improve Undergraduate Teaching:
Administrator and Faculty Responses. The Journal of Higher Education,
73(1), 3-25. doi: 10.2307/1558445.

Cross, K. (1976). Accent on Learning. San Fransico; Jossey-Bass.

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

Dougherty, K. J. (1997). Mass higher education: What is its impetus? What is its
impact? Teachers College Record, 99 (1), 66–72.

Dowd, A. C. (2003). From Access to Outcome Equity: Revitalizing the Democratic
Mission of the Community College. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 586, 92-119. doi: 10.2307/1049722.

Dowd, A. (2007). Community Colleges as Gateways and Gatekeepers: Moving
beyond the Access "Saga" toward Outcome Equity. Harvard Educational
Review, 77(4), 407.

Ewell, P. , Jones, D., and Kelly, P. (2003). Conceptualizing and researching the
educational pipeline. Accessed 15 February 2009 from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/analyses/Pipeline%20Article.pdf

Fike, D., Fike. R. (2008). Predictors of First-Year Student Retention in the
Community College. Community College Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 68-88.
Retrieved September 29, 2008, from Education Module database. (Document
ID- 1569189141).

Gahn, S., & Twombly, S. B. (2001). Dimensions of the Community College Faculty
Labor Market. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3), 259-282. Retrieved
May 18, 2009, from
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education/v024/24.3gahn.htm
l.

Goan, S.K., and Cunningham, A.F. (2007). Differential Characteristics of 2-Year
Postsecondary Institutions (NCES 2007-164rev). U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Gumport, P. J., & Bastedo, M. N. (2001). Academic Stratification and Endemic
Conflict: Remedial Education Policy at CUNY. The Review of Higher
Education, 24(4), 333-349.

73
Hagedorn, L., Siadet, M. V., Fogel, S., Nora, A. & Pascarella, E. (1999). Success in
college mathematics: comparisons between remedial and nonremedial first-
year college students. Reseach in Higher Education, 40(3), p. 261-284.

Hall, J. M. & Ponton, M. K. (2005). Mathematics self-efficacy of college freshman.
Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 26-30.

Hawkins, B., & Phillip, M. (1992). Calls to Raise Admissions Standards Open
Pandora’s Box of Issues for Campuses, Students. Black Issues in Higher
Education, Vol. __, No. __, p. 32-34.

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.

Karabel, J. 1977. "Community Colleges and Social Stratification: Submerged Class
Conflict in American Higher Education." Pp. 232-53 in Power and Ideology
in Education, edited by Jerome Karabel and A. H. Halsey. New York: Oxford
University Press.

Kirst, M. & 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.

Kisker, C., & Outcalt, C. (2005). Community College Honors and Developmental
Faculty: Characteristics, Practices, and Implications for Access and
Educational Equity. Community College Review, 33(2), 1. Retrieved April
27, 2009, from hhtp://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/

Kreysa, P. (2006-2007). The Impact of Remediation on Persistence of Under-
Prepared College Students. Journal of College Student Retention. Vol. 8 No.
2, p. 251-270.

Levin, H., & Calcagno, J. C. (2008). Remediation in the Community College: An
Evaluator's Perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181. Retrieved
March 8, 2009, from http://proquest.umi.com.libproxy.usc.edu/

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

74
Moss, B. G., & Yeaton, W. H. (2006). Shaping Policies Related to Developmental
Education: An Evaluation Using the Regression-Discontiniuity Design.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 215. Retrieved October 11,
2008. doi:10.3102/01623737028003215

National Council on Higher Education Management (2009). Student pipeline-
transition and completion rates from 9
th
grade to college. Accessed April 23,
2009 from
http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?submeasure=119&year=20
06&level=nation&mode=data&state=0.
Ostrove, J., Long, S. (2007) Social Class and Belonging: Implications for College
Adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, Vol 30, No. 4, p. 363-389

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

Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., and Terenzini, P. (2004). First-Generation
College Students- Additional Evidence on College Experiences and
Outcomes The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 75, No. 3, p. 249-284.

Payne, Emily and Barbara Lyman. 1998. “Issues Affecting the Definition of
Developmental Education.” National Association of Development Education

Perin, D. (2002). The Location of Developmental Education in Community Colleges:
A Discussion of the Merits of Mainstreaming vs. Centralization. Community
College Review, Vol.30, No. 1, p. 27.

Perin, D. (2005). Institutional Decision Making for Increasing Academic
Preparedness in Community Colleges. New Directions For Community
Colleges, No. 129

Perin, D. (2006). Can Community Colleges Protect Both Access and Standards?
The Problem of Remediation. Teachers College Record, Vol. 108 No. 3, p.
339-73.

Phipps, R. (1998). College Remediation: What it is, What it costs, What’s at stake.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Accessed March, 22, 2009 from
http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=12

75
Pitts, J. M., White, W. G., Jr., & Harrison, A. B. (1999). Student academic
underpreparedness: Effects on faculty. Review of Higher Education, 22, 343–
365.

Provasnik, S., and Planty, M. (2008). Community Colleges: Special Supplement to
The Condition of Education 2008 (NCES 2008-033). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.

Ready or Not: California plans to cut down remedial courses at four-year colleges.
(1995). The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 41, No. 29, p. A23.

Schults, C. (2000). Remedial Education: Practices and Policies in the Community
Colleges. (Research Brief No. AACC-RB-00-2). Washington D.C.: American
Association of Community Colleges. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. ED448811)

Shaw, K. (1997). Remedial Education As Ideological Battleground: Emerging
Remedial Education Policies in the Community College. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 3, p. 284-296.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of Theory and Practice in Student Attrition. The Journal of
Higher Education, Vol. 53, No. 6, p. 687-700. Retrieved September 23, 2008,
from JSTOR database.

Tinto, V. 1987. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student
Attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1988).Stages of Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of
Student Leaving. The Journal of Higher education. 59, No. 4, 438-455.

Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention – what next. Journal of
College Student Retention, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 1-19. Retrieved September 26,
2008, from Education Module database. (Document ID- 1074272021

Twombly, S., and Townsend, B. (2008). Community College Faculty What We Need
to Know. Community College Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, p. 5.

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

76
Wells, R., (2008). The Effects of Social and Cultural Capital on Student Persistence-
Are Community Colleges More Meritocratic? Community College Review,
36(1), 25-46. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Education Module dbase.
(Document ID- 1501105691).

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.

77
APPENDIX A
PROCEDURES FOR PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
1) Introduction and Greeting

2) Description of the study

3) Pre-Interview Questions
a. Name
b. Institution
c. Degrees and Majors
o Bachelors
o Masters
o Doctorate
d. Years Teaching Mathematics or in Higher Education Administration
o In Higher Education
o At this Institution
o K-12
e. Years teaching Remedial Mathematics
f. Faculty/Administration Status
o Full or Part-time
o Tenured or tenure track
o Rank
g. Number of sections taught each year
h. Number of remedial sections taught each year
i. Areas of administrative responsibility
j. Gender
k. Ethnicity

4) Description of interview procedures
a. Length of interview 60 to 90 minutes
b. Confidentiality
c. Interview recorded and transcribed
d. Transcription sent back to participant for validation

5) Schedule interview after gaining consent to take part in the study

78
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Faculty
1) How did you come to teach in the UH Community College System? In
Remedial Math?

2) In general, how would you describe your first year students’ math skills? i.e.
Algebra I level?

3) Do you feel that there are any particular pre-college factors that have led to your
students’ need for remedial Math?

4) What is the Mission of this institution and how does remedial education fit
within it?

5) Is this mission consistent with your beliefs?

6) What do you know about the COMPASS placement test?

7) Do you feel that students in your courses have been placed properly by
COMPASS?

8) In cases where they are not, what do you normally do about it?

9) Does the administration allow you to alter a student’s placement after the term
has begun?

10) What are your impressions about the future success of your students?

11) What is your perception of how many have continued on to transfer to a 4-year
college?

12) Do you think that your remedial students feel any stigma about the level of math
they are placed in?

13) Do they understand the difference between a remedial course and one that will
count toward program or degree completion?

14) How effective do you think the sequence of remedial math courses is?

79
15) What makes one type of student succeed better than another?

16) When you first started teaching remedial math, were you offered any
professional development?

17) Does the institution provide ongoing professional development?

18) How do State and College policies impact the way you teach your classes?

19) How supportive is the administration with your needs and/or concerns for
teaching remedial students?

20) How have your teaching strategies changed over time?

21) In general, how would you describe faculty and administration relationships at
this college?

22) Is the relationship between the remedial math faculty and the remedial
administrators any different?

23) You are “Dean for the Day” what two things would you change about the
remedial program? Why?

24) What advice would you give to new instructors and administrators who are
coming into remedial programs

Administrator

1) How did you come to work in the UH Community College System? In Remedial
program?

2) In general, how would you describe your first year students’ math skills? i.e.
Algebra I level?

3) Do you feel that there are any particular pre-college factors that have led to your
students’ need for remedial Math?

4) What is the Mission of this institution and how does remedial education fit
within it?

5) Is this mission consistent with your beliefs?

6) What do you know about the COMPASS placement test?

80
7) Do you feel that students are been placed properly by COMPASS?

8) In cases where they are not, what do you normally do about it?

9) Are the students given any preparation advice prior to taking the COMPASS?

10) Are the faculty allowed to alter a student’s placement after the term has begun?

11) What are your impressions about the future success of remedial math students?

12) What is your perception how many have continued on to transfer to a 4-year
college?

13) Do you think that remedial students feel any stigma about the level of math they
are placed in?

14) Do they understand the difference between a remedial course and one that will
count toward program or degree completion?

15) How effective do you think the sequence of remedial math courses is?

16) What makes one type of student succeed better than another?

17) Does the administration offer professional development for first time remedial
instructors?

18) Does the institution provide ongoing professional development for faculty and
admin personnel?

19) What qualifications do you look for in new faculty?

20) How do State and College policies impact the way you administer the program?

21) How supportive is the faculty with your needs and/or concerns for teaching
remedial students?

22) In general, how would you describe faculty and administration relationships at
this college?

23) Is the relationship between the remedial math faculty and the remedial
administrators any different?

81
24) You are “Dean for the Day” what two things would you change about the
remedial program? Why?

25) What advice would you give to new instructors and administrators who are
coming into remedial programs

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explores the perceptions held by faculty and administrators about the effectiveness and institutional characteristics of remedial mathematics programs at two community colleges. Each college approaches remedial education in a different manner but achieves similar outcomes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

The vortex of homophobic bullying: the reporting behavior of teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach

PDF

The impact of remedial mathematics on the success of African American and Latino male community college students

PDF

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

PDF

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

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Perception of barriers: the experiences of lecturers in adapting to changing institutional expectations in upgraded private technological university in Taiwan

PDF

The possible impact of elements of institutional culture on women students' higher education attainment in Hawaii

PDF

Strengthening Kamehamehaʻs Hawaiian identity: the faculty perspective

PDF

Teacher perception on coaching and effective professional development implementation

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

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

PDF

Bypass for a “leaky” educational pipeline: a case study of the Bridge Program at Punahou School

PDF

The journey: Asian American females in higher education administration

Asset Metadata

Creator Datta, Asoke Kumar (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/13/2010

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

Tag community college,Developmental,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceptions of faculty,remedial

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email adatta@usc.edu,asoke.k.datta@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3439

Unique identifier UC1202613

Identifier etd-Datta-4120 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-382793 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3439 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Datta-4120.pdf

Dmrecord 382793

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Datta, Asoke Kumar

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