Supporting academically underprepared postsecondary students: An exploration of corequisite developmental education across the Americas

Purpose A common challenge facing many higher education institutions globally is providing adequate support for academically underprepared students for college-level work. In the United States, open-access institutions have a long history of serving students from diverse backgrounds and levels of academic preparation (Kisker et al., 2023). In comparison, South American countries have experienced a more recent massification of higher education over the past several decades, expanding access to students from underrepresented backgrounds (Santelices & Celis, 2022). Both regions have increasingly turned to developmental education programs to equip students with the skills needed for college success. This paper will explore innovative solutions for supporting academically underprepared students, focusing on the corequisite model that allow students to complete a developmental (or remedial) course concurrently with a college-level course. It also provides new empirical evidence of the effectiveness of corequisite courses for students from diverse backgrounds based on the authors' five-year study of corequisite reform in Texas. Specifically, the research addresses two questions: (1) How are innovative reforms to developmental education, such as corequisite courses, used in North and South America to support academically underprepared students? (2) To what extent are different types of corequisite courses effective for students from various backgrounds, including race/ethnicity, low-income status, academic preparation, and English learner status, based on evidence from Texas' corequisite developmental education reform? Literature Review In the United States, open-access colleges have traditionally required academically underprepared students to complete lengthy developmental coursework in math and/or English before progressing to college-level courses. However, research indicates that such sequences are often ineffective, with low rates of completion and progression among participants (Clotfelter et al., 2015; Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, 2015). Recent reforms aim to streamline developmental education by accelerating timelines and integrating developmental support with college-level coursework (Authors, in press). Corequisite courses, which enroll students simultaneously in college-level courses and associated support structures like labs or tutoring, have emerged as a popular reform model. These approaches reduce time spent in developmental coursework and limit dropout risks related to prolonged remedial education (Bailey & Jaggars, 2016). Studies from multiple states in the U.S. have demonstrated the success of corequisite models in improving student outcomes and reducing costs (Belfield et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2022; Ran & Lin, 2022). While research on developmental education is more limited in South America, early evidence suggests that corequisite approaches are effective. For instance, studies in Chile found that students in corequisite math courses achieved higher grades, had higher GPAs, and lower dropout rates compared to peers in traditional sequences (Boatman et al., 2021; Venegas-Muggli et al., 2019). Data & Methods This study draws on a five-year evaluation of corequisite reform in Texas, analyzing student-level data from four cohorts of students enrolled in corequisite courses from the population of public institutions. A quantitative analysis was conducted using student-level records to track outcomes through the first year of college to assess students’ academic success. The study employed first-differenced regression models to examine how corequisite course effectiveness varied by course intensity (number of credit hours) and structure (e.g., separate course vs. for-credit academic support like tutoring). Second-differenced regression models were then used to explore variations in these relationships across student characteristics, including race/ethnicity, low-income status, academic preparation, and English learner status. This methodological approach provided a nuanced understanding of how corequisite courses affect diverse student populations. Findings The evaluation of Texas' corequisite developmental education reform revealed that no single corequisite course structure was universally effective; outcomes varied by subject area and student subgroup. Even a single credit of corequisite support demonstrated benefits for some students, particularly those with moderate academic preparation. However, students with the lowest levels of academic readiness derived less benefit from shorter corequisite courses, suggesting a need for additional instructional time to build foundational skills. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring developmental education to meet the needs of different student groups. Discussion As institutions seek to support academically underprepared students, corequisite developmental education courses offer significant advantages over traditional remedial sequences. First, corequisite models reduce the number of exit points in course progression, improving persistence and completion rates (Jaggars et al., 2015; Ran & Lin, 2022). Second, these models often involve pedagogical innovations that align developmental and college-level content, fostering a more cohesive learning experience. These reforms represent a promising strategy for enhancing equity and success in higher education, addressing the needs of underrepresented and underprepared students across the Americas. References Belfield, C., Jenkins, P. D., & Lahr, H. E. (2016). Is corequisite remediation cost-effective? Early findings from Tennessee. Community College Research Center. Boatman, A., Claro, S., Fresard, M., & Kramer, J. W. (2022). Do corequisite math courses improve academic outcomes in technical colleges?: Evidence from Chile. Research in Higher Education, 63(3), 453-480. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Muschkin, C., & Vigdor, J. L. (2015). Developmental education in North Carolina community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(3), 354–375. Kisker, C. B., Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2023). The American Community College. John Wiley & Sons. Miller, T., Daugherty, L., Martorell, P., & Gerber, R. (2022). Assessing the effect of corequisite English instruction using a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15(1), 78–102. Ran, F.X. & Lin, Y. (2022). The effects of corequisite remediation: Evidence from a statewide reform in Tennessee. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(3), 458-484. Santelices, M. V., & Celis, S. (2022). Introduction to the special issue: Student experience in Latin American higher education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 30, 59-59. Scott-Clayton, J., & Rodriguez, O. (2015). Development, discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college remediation policy. Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 4–45. Venegas-Muggli, J. I., Muñoz-Gajardo, K. A., & González-Clares, M. J. (2019). The impact of counseling and mathematics remedial programs on the academic achievement of higher education students in Chile. Journal of College Student Development, 60(4), 472-488.