Abstract
Research on developmental education reform has given surprisingly limited attention to what happens inside the classroom between faculty and students. Our qualitative study used interview data from 20 faculty and 20 students in corequisite math and English courses at one of the nation’s largest and most racially diverse community college systems. Specifically, we used validation theory to examine faculty teaching strategies and support structures that may increase academic success among corequisite students. Our findings demonstrate that the most effective faculty, who often had course pass rates 20% above the institutional average, created validating learning environments that addressed students’ academic and interpersonal needs. We provide recommendations for expanding the use of validating teaching and learning practices in corequisite-developmental education courses to ensure more equitable student outcomes.
Keywords
Nationally, more than two-thirds of first-year community college students are deemed academically underprepared and enroll in math and/or English developmental education courses (Ganga et al., 2018). Among the students who enroll, racially minoritized 1 students (i.e., Black, Latinx, Indigenous) are overrepresented in this group (Bickerstaff et al., 2022; Brathwaite & Edgecombe, 2018; Emblom-Callahan et al., 2019; Logue et al., 2019). This leads to equity concerns since enrollment in developmental education is a strong predictor of student persistence, and consequently, a student’s likelihood of ever earning a postsecondary credential (Bailey et al., 2010; Edgecombe & Bickerstaff, 2018). Research has also shown traditional developmental education delivery models are linked to lower completion and transfer rates (Bickerstaff et al., 2022; Emblom-Callahan et al., 2019; Ganga et al., 2018).
As a result, more state-wide and national efforts have been made to reform developmental education instruction, many of which are showing promising student success outcomes (Complete College America [CCA], 2021). This is particularly true for corequisite courses where students are simultaneously enrolled in a support course and college-level math or English course (Daugherty et al., 2018; Emblom-Callahan et al., 2019; Logue et al., 2019; Vandal, 2014). Students are then able to begin their college career by taking college-level coursework while also receiving structured academic support (CCA, 2021; Vandal, 2014). The goal is for students to begin college-level coursework immediately, with appropriate supports, and accelerate their eventual completion or transfer.
Emerging research has shown an increase in first-year pass rates with students enrolled in the corequisite model when compared to their peers in traditional developmental education courses (Logue et al., 2019; T. Miller et al., 2022; Ran & Lin, 2022). Georgia, New York, and West Virginia are some of the states that implemented the corequisite model early on and have seen success (CCA, 2021). Yet, equity concerns remain where racially minoritized students are again overrepresented in the 30% of students who do not pass within the corequisite model (Brathwaite & Edgecombe, 2018; Logue et al., 2019; Mokher et al., 2020). Though corequisite courses are effective, more is needed to support racially minorized students to increase not only pass rates, but also student persistence, graduation, and transfer (T. Miller et al., 2022; Ran & Lin, 2022).
Most research on developmental education reform has focused on policy changes, testing and placement, and delivery models (Brathwaite et al., 2020). However, less attention is given to what happens inside the classroom, though quality of teaching and pedagogy are critical to student success (Barhoum, 2018; Brathwaite et al., 2020; Cox, 2018). Prior research has shown that validation in the classroom is particularly important for minoritized students and students deemed academically underprepared (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Castillo, 2020; Kelly et al., 2021; Yadusky et al., 2020), but to date, research has not examined the role that validation plays in student success within the corequisite context specifically. For learning environments to be validating, faculty and staff must affirm students’ academic abilities to develop confidence and a greater sense of belonging at the institution (Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). Moreover, the use of validation theory to develop innovative teaching strategies can be particularly important in corequisite classes to establish early academic confidence and momentum, which increases the likelihood of successful completion or transfer (Wang, 2017).
The purpose of our study was to identify teaching strategies and support structures that highly effective community college faculty use to increase students’ academic success in their corequisite math or English courses. Additionally, our study context is one of the nation’s largest and most racially and ethnically diverse community college systems, making it an ideal site to better understand how to enhance student success within the corequisite model. Though faculty play a pivotal role in student success, developmental education reform decisions and assessment often lack faculty input (Bradburn & Townsend, 2014; Cafarella, 2016; Lane et al., 2020; Schrynemakers et al., 2019). Community college faculty have been described as “honored but invisible” (Grubb, 2002) and “overlooked and undervalued” (Townsend & Twombly, 2007), yet their work is central to efforts to improve equity in developmental education. Thus, the following two research questions guided our study:
How do effective math and English faculty design and structure their corequisite courses to increase students’ likelihood for success?
What classroom practices and strategies do these faculty use that have consistently resulted in higher success rates in their corequisite courses?
Literature Review
Our review focused on three areas within the broader literature on developmental education. First, we summarize research on community college faculty and those who specifically teach developmental education courses. Next, we reviewed research that identified effective teaching strategies in developmental education. Lastly, we highlight research that has brought attention to equity concerns within developmental education and the experiences of racially minoritized students. Though our review focuses on traditional developmental education models, we were also intentional to highlight research on the corequisite model to expose the need for more research specific to this model.
Community College Faculty Who Teach Developmental Education
Most research involving community college faculty examines their role as instructors teaching at institutions with a unique open access mission (Alexander et al., 2012; Gonzales & Ayers, 2018; Grubb, 2002, 2013; Roueche et al., 2003; Townsend & Twombly, 2007). Because community colleges are open-access, community college faculty must manage classrooms with varying student learning needs, which requires utilizing multiple pedagogical approaches and strategies. Research has shown that to teach more effectively at the community college level, faculty should consider new ways to assess student learning and develop more interpersonal connections with students (Alexander et al., 2012; Ching, 2018).
Though most community colleges rely heavily on part-time faculty to teach (approximately 67%), research on adjunct or part-time faculty, particularly in developmental education, is limited (Datray et al., 2014; Hurlburt & McGarrah, 2016; Ran & Sanders, 2020). Earlier studies on community college faculty would regularly associate negative student success outcomes and lower quality of teaching with part-time faculty (Bettinger & Long, 2006; Eagan & Jaeger, 2009). A more recent study by Ran and Sanders (2020) analyzed administrative data from six colleges that were part of an Achieving the Dream project and explored the student success outcomes of part-time faculty. From their analysis, they found that community college students enrolled in developmental education courses were more likely to pass with a part-time faculty member than with a full-time faculty member; however, students taught by a part-time faculty member were less likely to pass the next college-level course (Ran & Sanders, 2020). This study also brings attention to part-time faculty not having the same level of institutional support and knowledge as their full-time colleagues to provide students with the appropriate resources to help with long-term success (Ran & Sanders, 2020).
Another recent study by Lane et al. (2020) surveyed faculty from 14 New York City institutions about their perceptions of student success since implementing new developmental education reforms. This study found that full-time faculty perceived student academic quality decreasing since the new model. Full-time faculty were also more in favor of reimplementing high-stakes testing for students who transfer. Lane et al. (2020) suggest these findings are related to full-time faculty being more familiar with student assessment measures than part-time faculty. However, Walker (2015) specifically interviewed English, reading, and math faculty from a large, comprehensive community college in the Mid-Atlantic to explore how accelerated developmental education courses have influenced their teaching. Faculty from this study perceived teaching in this new model as more rewarding, increasing student success, and building stronger connections with students than teaching traditional developmental education courses (Walker, 2015). Regardless of faculty part-time or full-time status, institutions are encouraged to seek more input and actively involve faculty when implementing and assessing developmental education reform efforts (Cox, 2018).
Effective Teaching Strategies in Developmental Education
Because of an increase in national and state-wide initiatives focused on improving student success outcomes, research on developmental education has garnered more attention. Scholars have also pushed for more research focused on effective teaching strategies and classroom-level reforms in developmental education (Bickerstaff et al., 2022; Dadgar et al., 2023; D’Antonio, 2020; Henry & Stahl, 2017; T. Lundberg et al., 2018; Nabb & Murawska, 2020; Richardson, 2021). For instance, student-centered teaching is an approach being promoted in development education courses because of the engaging and supportive learning environments that are created (Capt & Oliver, 2012; Flynn et al., 2017; Henry & Stahl, 2017; Mellow et al., 2011). Student-centered teaching includes incorporating a more multicultural curriculum where students’ lived experiences are validated and connected to what they are learning (E. E. Doran & Singh, 2018), as well as faculty who use culturally relevant teaching to involve students in the learning process (E. E. Doran, 2021). Research has also shown promising student success outcomes when faculty use innovative teaching approaches in math developmental education (Cox, 2015; Dadgar et al., 2023; Logue et al., 2019; Rutschow, 2018), particularly strategies that help students overcome math fears and anxiety (Cox, 2009) and incorporate language support in teaching math (Gomez et al., 2015). Research on teaching innovation also emphasize the importance of developing new teaching approaches; however, this can create added work demands and responsibilities for faculty to be innovative within their teaching (Fraser, 2019).
Additionally, scholars have highlighted the importance of helping developmental education students improve other college skills (e.g., study skills, notetaking, time management) beyond what is found in the course content (Crisp & Taggart, 2013; Grubb, 2013). For example, programs like the CUNY Start program have found more holistic services with specially trained faculty and advisors have increased the number of students enrolling in future college-level courses (Bickerstaff & Edgecombe, 2019). Though progress has been made, more research is needed to further examine how these new classroom-level changes have influenced student learning and success (Cox, 2018; Rutschow et al., 2019).
Minoritized Students in Developmental Education
Lastly, it is important to highlight more current research that addresses the inequities that remain in developmental education. Scholars have begun to examine state-wide reform efforts and have identified inequities in who has access and enrolls in newer models like corequisite courses (Bickerstaff et al., 2022). For example, a study examining math pathway courses in Texas found that more white students were enrolled in math pathway courses while Latinx students enrolled in traditional developmental math courses (Schudde & Meiselman, 2019). This study reveals the need for reform efforts to also closely examine how students are placed and advised into these new developmental education models which can lead to inequities (Maldonado, 2019). However, some state-wide models in Florida and California have seen more equitable outcomes where positive course completion and pass rates are similar across white, Black, and Latinx students (Mejia et al., 2020; Park-Gaghan et al., 2020). This research demonstrates that developmental education reform efforts have the potential to address inequities in student success outcomes.
Scholars have also brought attention to classroom factors that contribute to inequities. Specifically, racially minoritized students in invalidating learning environments experience stereotype threat where they begin to develop self-doubt and increased anxiety (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Crisp et al., 2017; Preston, 2017; Roberts, 2020; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Research has also brought attention to the racism and implicit bias racially minoritized students, particularly Black students, must manage in the classroom from faculty and other students (Brathwaite et al., 2020; Malcom-Piqueux et al., 2022; Roberts, 2020). Because of these reoccurring incidents, racially minoritized students often lose confidence in their ability to succeed in their developmental education course(s), as well as to successfully graduate or transfer. Roberts (2020) highlighted the experiences of Black students who succeed in developmental math but do so by navigating and overcoming stressors such as biased behaviors and stereotype threat.
To address these inequities, organizations have recommended for more holistic professional development and training to enhance faculty teaching (Association of College and University Educators [ACUE] & Sova, 2021). This requires faculty and advisors to reshape their way of thinking about students in developmental education from a deficit to a non-deficit perspective—rather than blaming students, believing in students’ abilities and meeting students where they are academically (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Castillo-Montoya, 2019; Malcom-Piqueux et al., 2022; Nix et al., 2021; Ran et al., 2022; Roberts, 2020).
In summary, this review of the literature shows the progress that has been made when it comes to improving teaching within developmental education courses. Yet, inequities remain when examining success rates in developmental and corequisite courses. Classroom-level teaching strategies seem to have the greatest impact on student learning and success, and more input is needed from faculty who teach developmental education. Ultimately, our study helps to bring attention to promising classroom-level practices that can help address equity concerns and enhance student success specifically within the corequisite model.
Theoretical Framework
Our study utilized validation theory as a framework to identify effective teaching strategies used by corequisite faculty. Validation theory has been used in multiple ways to study student success, as well as faculty pedagogy. Developed by Rendón (1994), validation theory provides a framework that shifts the focus from the students to the institutional agents (i.e., faculty and staff) and what they are doing to affirm students’ abilities inside and outside the classroom (Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). This requires institutional agents to: “1) validate students as creators of knowledge and as valuable members of the college learning community and 2) foster personal development and social adjustment” (Rendón & Muñoz, 2011, p. 12). A key piece to Rendón’s (1994) study is the importance of validation for minoritized students (i.e., low-income, first-generation, Students of Color) who typically enter academic environments doubting their ability to be successful. Minoritized students often develop this mindset because of previous negative experiences in academic spaces. Thus, validation theory challenges traditional teaching norms and enhances student success by acknowledging minoritized students’ lived experiences in the learning process.
Validation can come in two forms: academic and interpersonal. Institutional agents providing academic validation are focused on helping students build confidence in their academic abilities (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). Though academic validation can be offered outside the classroom, it is particularly important for faculty to create a classroom learning environment where students can experience success. Institutional agents providing interpersonal validation are focused on supporting students’ personal growth and adjustment to the college environment (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). Faculty also play an important role in providing interpersonal validation by recognizing students’ backgrounds and who they are as people, which includes their lives outside the classroom. Faculty can create a classroom space that fosters interpersonal validation through the types of student interactions and classroom activities that allow students to be their authentic selves where they can also learn from one another. Validating experiences can ultimately increase college persistence as students develop more confidence in their academic abilities and a greater sense of belonging through interpersonal relationships.
Validation theory has been applied in various ways to study student success in higher education. These applications include examining students’ experiences with support services, such as writing centers (Azima, 2020), exploring success across different academic fields, like agricultural education (Tera et al., 2019) and Victorian studies (Perez-Cancino, 2022), analyzing types of classroom support (Quiñonez & Olivas, 2020), and investigating student success by institutional type (e.g., HSIs, HBCUs, PWIs) (E. Doran, 2023; Kelly et al., 2021; Ozuna Allen, 2016). Community college researchers are also utilizing validation theory to examine student outcomes, particularly because of the diverse needs of community college students (Barnett, 2011; C. A. Lundberg, 2014; Tovar, 2015). Studies have explored community college programs and initiatives that support diverse students’ transitions and adjustment, such as students from urban communities (Baber, 2018), international students (Zhang, 2016), Latinx students (Castillo, 2020), and Black women (Kelly et al., 2021).
Developmental education researchers have also encouraged higher education institutions to begin assessing individual aspects of the classroom learning environment including faculty teaching practices (Cox, 2018). Validation theory can help with this charge since it has been used to inform teaching strategies where faculty are more accessible, supportive, and partners in the learning process (Nuñez et al., 2010; Rendón, 2009). Moreover, validating corequisite courses have the potential to help build students’ academic momentum that enables them to persist and graduate (Wang, 2017). For our study, we utilized validation theory to examine how faculty create validating learning environments within corequisite classrooms. Additionally, most of the students at our institutional site who enroll in developmental education courses are racially minoritized students (i.e., Black and Latinx). Thus, validation theory is a useful framework to explore how validating teaching strategies can improve student success in corequisite courses and reform developmental education.
Research Methods
Institutional and State Context
Urban Community College (UCC, a pseudonym) is one of the largest and most racially and ethnically diverse community college systems in the nation, enrolling approximately 80,000 students annually. In 2019-2020, the UCC student body was 68% Black or Latinx, 41% above age 25, and 40% Pell Grant recipients. Additionally, approximately 38% of new UCC students were referred to developmental education in fall 2019. 2
In 2017, Texas legislation (HB 2223) was passed that required postsecondary institutions to phase in a corequisite model to deliver developmental coursework (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board [THECB], 2018). HB 2223 gave institutions until the fall of 2020 to have at least 75% of their developmental education enrollment in corequisite courses, which required institutions to prioritize this new state mandate. However, institutions were given the autonomy to determine how to structure and implement corequisite courses as long as the learning outcomes established by the state were met.
Beginning in fall 2018, UCC students deemed academically underprepared in math and/or English were advised to enroll in corequisite courses. Students were informed about the benefits of corequisite courses, such as receiving “just-in-time” academic support while taking the college-level course, in addition to saving time and money. In UCC’s corequisite model, the college-level course included a mix of students enrolled in only the college-level course and students also enrolled in a supplementary support course. The support course included a smaller cohort of students from the same college-level course who receive additional support directly before or after the college-level course. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all corequisite courses were taught online, synchronously, though prior to the pandemic developmental education courses were only taught in-person. Many corequisite models use a single instructor to teach both sections; however, due to its size, UCC included sections using both a single instructor and team teaching (i.e., two instructors). Students who pass UCC’s corequisite course are then designated as “college-ready” in the state of Texas and can enroll in all courses requiring college-level reading, writing, or math, regardless of whether they pass the college-level pair.
While this model has generated promising early results at UCC, there are still many students who do not pass the corequisite course sequence. Given the student diversity and new corequisite state mandate (HB 2223), UCC provided an ideal setting to identify faculty teaching strategies that can address equity in developmental education reform efforts.
Data Collection
We utilized qualitative data for this study from a larger mixed-methods project focused on improving equity outcomes in developmental education. This project is part of a longstanding research-practice partnership between UCC and a neighboring public research university, Urban University (UU, a pseudonym). A purposeful sampling approach was used to recruit both faculty and students for this part of the study where we wanted to identify faculty who have been successful in teaching corequisite courses, as well as students who are showing success in these courses (Patton, 2014). Because recognizing students’ backgrounds and lived experiences is essential within validation theory, we found it important to also include student voices in our data collection and analysis.
Corequisite math and English faculty were identified as “highly effective” by using the following criteria: 1) Course evaluations; 2) Percentage of students who pass the developmental education section; 3) Percentage of students who pass college-level section; 4) Percentage of developmental education students who pass college-level sections; 5) Students’ success in the next college-level course where available (e.g., the second semester of freshman English); 6) Differences in success rates by race/ethnicity; and 7) Nominations from department chairs. Only faculty who had taught at least three sections of the course were included in our criteria. To mask faculty identities, employee IDs were used to run an analysis of institutional records using the first five criteria as benchmarks. Faculty who fell in the top 10% across each of the first five criteria were identified as potential participants. From this pool, we further refined our faculty selection by identifying faculty whose differentials in student success by race/ethnicity were less than department averages for each of the following comparisons: white-Black, Black-Hispanic, Hispanic-Black. Comparisons to Asian-American students was not completed because of small sample sizes in many sections. Faculty were included only if they met the objective criteria. Our pool of potential faculty participants collectively had corequisite course pass rates that, on average, were 20% higher than other corequisite faculty (see Figure 1). Results from our analysis were then cross-referenced with department nominations as an additional validity check. Only one faculty member was nominated across all areas who was not also in the blind sample; however, because departmental nomination lists included only 10 faculty (math) and 15 faculty (English), many faculty were identified by the above procedure but not nominated.
Course Pass Rates for Highly Effective Faculty.
We analyzed three years of data to identify highly effective faculty. The starting sample was 429 faculty who were eligible to teach the English corequisite or college-level course (135 full-time, 294 part-time) and 286 Math faculty who were eligible to teach the Math corequisite or college-level course (90 full-time, 196 part-time). Thirty-eight of the English faculty and 25 of the math faculty fit our criteria as highly effective. From this pool, we randomly selected faculty to send an initial email invitation to participate in our study. This recruitment email provided them with more information about the study along with an online survey to collect demographic information, complete the consent form, and schedule a virtual interview. We returned to our faculty pool until we interviewed enough faculty to reach saturation (Patton, 2014). Faculty participants were provided a $600 stipend to compensate them for their time. In return, faculty participated in two one-on-one interviews and one focus group, and provided our research team with examples of learning materials from their corequisite courses (e.g., syllabi, assignments, lesson plans). These course learning materials were not part of the formal data analysis in this current study but used to inform the development of our interview protocols. Our final corequisite faculty sample was 20 (10 math; 10 English) and a majority of our faculty taught both sections of the corequisite model (17 both; 2 college-level; 1 support course) (see Table 1).
Sample Characteristics
As part of the larger study, we interviewed both students who did not pass the corequisite course sequence their first semester and students who were successful. To recruit corequisite students for this study, faculty participants were also asked to identify students who had shown success (i.e., through assignments, homework, class engagement) in their current corequisite course as well as students who did well in their corequisite courses from the previous semester. We asked faculty to send a recruitment email on behalf of the research team that provided students with information about the study, as well as the online survey to complete. We continued to ask faculty to send our recruitment email until we interviewed enough students to reach saturation (Patton, 2014). We had 26 students (11 math; 15 English) who initially showed interest by submitting the online survey. Students who completed an individual interview were provided a $25 gift card for their participation. Our final corequisite student sample was 20 (7 math; 13 English) and all students were from a racially minoritized group (10 Black; 5 Latinx-Hispanic; 4 Asian; 1 multi-racial) (see Table 1).
Both UCC and UU research team members co-constructed the interview protocols to increase trustworthiness. Literature on developmental education and validation theory was used to help develop the protocols, along with the course learning materials shared by the faculty participants. Interview protocols differed where faculty were asked more about their teaching philosophy and teaching tools/strategies, while student protocols focused on the classroom learning environment and their experiences with taking two courses in the corequisite model. Interviews occurred during the Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 semesters. All interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom due to COVID-19 pandemic limitations. Individual interviews ranged from 30-45 minutes and were conducted by a UU research team member. Participants were also given the opportunity to choose their own pseudonym to maintain confidentiality.
Data Analysis
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcription data were de-identified and reviewed by the entire research team to have a shared meaning of the raw data. Coding procedures recommended by Miles et al. (2014) and Saldaña (2015) were utilized with three cycles of coding. First, deductive codes were initially assigned to each transcript that were more descriptive and connected to the interview protocol. For example, codes when discussing faculty behaviors included “being available/accessible,” “flexibility,” and “reaching-out.” Next, a second cycle of inductive coding was used to combine and revise codes while connecting it to validation theory. In the previous example, codes were then grouped into a broader category of “Supportive Behaviors.” Lastly, a third cycle of coding was used to identify patterns among both the faculty and student data. We grouped data while again making connections back to our theoretical framework where we focused on ways faculty created validating learning environments for corequisite students (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). Themes were identified from our analysis and peer-debriefed to make meaning of the data individually and collectively by the research team.
Limitations
There are potential limitations to our study that should be considered. The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly influenced the experiences of the UCC faculty and students we interviewed. Corequisite courses were previously delivered only in-person, then transitioned to an online, synchronous format in March 2020. Both faculty and student participants acknowledged the challenges with online learning and managing personal challenges with the COVID-19 pandemic. However, our findings identified factors related to the teaching and learning process that were more salient to student success regardless of the online or in-person format.
We also recognize that the criteria we used to identify “highly effective” faculty may not capture all corequisite faculty with effective teaching practices and we did not observe faculty in their classes. We understand there are other factors (i.e., grading policies, course scheduling, student characteristics, faculty characteristics) that can potentially influence pass rates in the corequisite model. However, including students’ success in the college-level course and next course as metrics was intended to correlate with students’ mastery of learning outcomes, which then eliminated some faculty with high pass rates in the corequisite course but lower pass rates in college-level courses. That said, the corequisite faculty we interviewed for our study may not be completely representative of what makes a “highly effective” instructor. Additionally, how we selected students is a potential limitation since we identified students viewed as successful by their faculty. Ultimately, our sampling strategy was not meant to compare corequisite faculty teaching, but to provide an opportunity to highlight teaching strategies identified by students and faculty as effective within the corequisite model.
Findings
The interview data with corequisite faculty and students revealed the following themes regarding strategies used to help students succeed: 1) Building students’ confidence; 2) Engaging learning community; and 3) Showing empathy and care. Besides highlighting specific teaching strategies, our themes capture more of the mindsets and behaviors that guided faculty in their teaching, which we found to be critical to the corequisite classroom.
Building Students’ Confidence
The highly effective corequisite faculty in our study were acutely aware of students’ prior negative experiences with English and/or math courses. Faculty then recognized the importance of using the corequisite (coreq) course to help students build their confidence and academic self-efficacy. Beyond helping students learn concepts and develop skills, faculty participants understood students’ lack of confidence was key to their success. A math faculty member explained this confidence building: You don’t want to add more burden and more headaches to them. So as I’ve said, once you do it the first time and they [coreq students] see themselves successful—[because] the goal when you teach coreq is to try to have students gain confidence in themselves. It’s going to be a long process, but slowly, you’ll say, “Wow, look at you. You got the answer right.” – Moe, Math Faculty
Moe’s awareness of his students’ needs allowed him to modify his teaching to help students see themselves as successful. Another math faculty member shared her perceptions of the students in her corequisite classes: They [coreq students] always end up being the brightest students who come through [my classes]. And so, I try to create a very easygoing [environment] in terms of I recognize that you’re a genius. I recognize that you may not know it yet, so don’t fight me as I try to bring it out of you. And so, that’s really my attitude. – Spark, Math Faculty
The way Spark describes her corequisite students demonstrates a non-deficit approach to teaching where she believes in her students’ abilities to be successful. Rather than questioning students’ math skills, she goes into her corequisite classroom already knowing her students are talented and capable of learning.
Corequisite faculty participants also highlighted the importance of recognizing students’ efforts by providing timely feedback. An English faculty member explained how she provides feedback to build students’ confidence: I try to find something in everybody’s work that is good. I don’t just want to say, “Hey, you forgot to put in the details, did you not read the directions?” I always start with, “Hey, you almost got it! But you need some more details.” – C.M., English Faculty
C.M.’s intentionality by offering positive and constructive feedback helps her students see their progress and how they are improving which ultimately builds students’ confidence. Another English faculty member described how her students’ attitudes and confidence changed after taking her corequisite class: All they [coreq students] needed was a little push in the right direction, and it turns out they’re pretty good at English after all. . . Because they’ll [coreq students] tell me at the beginning, “I’m a bad writer. I’ve always been a bad writer.” A lot of them say that and it’s like, “No, you just didn’t have anybody saying this is what you do.” Because I tell them at the beginning, we all have our quirks and our little things that we mess up on all the time, even people who are English teachers. – Linda, English Faculty
This description highlights Linda’s awareness of her students’ lack of confidence in their writing abilities when they first enroll in her corequisite course. Yet, Linda helped normalize the idea that writing can be difficult for even the best writers, but it is how you manage those difficulties that can lead to success.
Student participants also mentioned how their confidence has grown since enrolling in corequisite courses. An English student shared how he feels more confident in his writing: Now, I can see myself actually writing a good paper. Of course, with all that I’ve been learning so far, I can confidently say that I could start writing my own papers without a lot of help anymore. – Rob, English Student
Similarly, a math student described how her math skills have developed and improved since taking the corequisite course: First of all, I never liked math. It was my worst subject in high school. I always failed. When the professor was teaching in [the coreq] class, I was like, “Wow, this does actually seem much easier than high school.” I’m going to be surprised on my test scores because I never got those scores in high school. – Gozie, Math Student
Because of the faculty member’s teaching approach, Gozie found learning math less intimidating where she became more engaged and excited to see how she improved since high school. Another math student shared how her math professor has built her confidence: She [faculty] has helped me in many ways, just like letting me know, “Don't give up. It can be done, just figure out a different way of doing things. If you need help, come to me. I will write down step by step how to do this, [and] send you a picture of it just so that you can get it.” She is very, very helpful. – Shay, Math Student
Shay’s comment demonstrates how faculty who are willing to teach math in different ways, make themselves available, and are encouraging can help students stay motivated and build their confidence. Overall, these findings illuminate how students enrolled in corequisite courses may have had their needs overlooked in previous math and English courses where they are now intimidated by the subject. Corequisite faculty may not be able to mitigate all challenges impacting student success; however, faculty can help students develop their math and reading/writing skills by also diminishing the negative perceptions students may have about these subjects, which can lead to persistence and success in future college-level courses.
Engaging Learning Community
Along with building students’ confidence, corequisite faculty in our study understood that dominant teaching strategies used in math and English courses have not worked for their corequisite students. Because the corequisite course had fewer students than the stand-alone college-level course, faculty participants were intentional about making the corequisite course into more of a learning community where students could learn from one another and ask questions. An English faculty member described this type of learning environment for her corequisite courses: I think you really have to try to create a sense of community for the class and show that this is a learning space where students can make mistakes and where they can share with each other and with the instructor any difficulties. – Marianne, English Faculty
Marianne’s description highlights the importance of establishing a learning environment where students can be vulnerable with their faculty and peers. Faculty also shared different ways they created this learning community in their corequisite classes. For example, another English faculty member shared how he engages his class in collaborative learning: Usually, the [coreq] class structure starts with a quick check-in. “How are we doing? How are we feeling?” Specifically, we go around the room and say one word that describes how we’re feeling today like what’s our condition. Today, a lot of students said, “I’m cold. I’m tired. I’m sleepy” so that just puts us in a collective consciousness spirit. “Okay. We know as a group we’re feeling a little isolated. We’re feeling cold. It’s early in the morning. Let’s just do the activity together.” Then, we’ll go into reviewing the major assignment for 1301 [college-level course] so I’ll pull up the assignment sheet just to clarify if there are any questions. If there are questions, we address them as a group. – Luis, English Faculty
By checking in with his students at the beginning of class, Luis provided students with a space to share and open up about how they were feeling emotionally and about what they are learning. Luis is then able to modify his lesson to best fit students’ needs at the moment while also preparing them for what to expect in the college-level course. A math faculty member also explained her approach to teaching and the benefits of having students work together: I’ve figured out that [coreq] students aren’t shy because they don’t know the math; they shy away because they don’t want the teacher to say something embarrassing to them in front of their peers. So, it’s not a matter of them not knowing or not wanting to answer the question because if I put them in groups with each other, they’ll say the wrong answer without a problem . . . so, it’s been interesting to see the dynamics that they have when they’re amongst each other and how relaxed and less intimidated they are to share their shortcomings with each other. – Chi, Math Faculty
Chi recognized her students were initially more open with their peers, so she introduced small group learning as a space for students to feel comfortable asking questions.
As part of creating a learning community, corequisite faculty also acknowledged their role to be more of a facilitator than a lecturer. For instance, a math faculty member shared how he views his role within a community of learners: I always try to be very informative and let them know that we will work as a community, as a learning community. That we all are going to contribute to the success of the entire class . . . So that’s my teaching philosophy—that we are a community, active learning community. The instructor is not a lecturer anymore but is a facilitator. It’s someone who is part of the entire class who is not only teaching but is also learning from his student. It’s learning how to improve the learning experience of his students, how to reach his students in particular, and of course sometimes you also learn new approaches on how to solve a problem. I have to admit that too. – Miguel, Math Faculty
Miguel demonstrates how he does not teach math where he only lectures but uses community and group learning to develop new skills together. This also requires him to grow as an instructor and find new ways to solve math problems to better support his students.
Corequisite students also described how having a learning environment where they can work together and learn from one another was beneficial. An English student shared: The thing about that [coreq] class is almost everybody there participates, gives out their own opinions, [and] their own thoughts about the paper that we’re learning. That’s why I like it because everybody basically participates, and you get different opinions from different sides and it’s good . . . It’s all about just learning from each other. – Rob, English Student
Similarly, a math student highlighted how her faculty member created a more engaging learning environment: She [faculty] loves asking questions and different things like that. She makes it actually fun to learn new things. It’s always fun. It’s never a dull moment in that [coreq] classroom. We stay laughing. It’s always fun, but we learn at the same time. That’s what I really, really like. – Shay, Math Student
Another math student discussed how her faculty member went over math problems together as a class to gauge their learning: With her [faculty], if it’s something new, then we’re going over it. She breaks it down, stops, “Is everybody good? Do we need to do a couple of more examples? Is everything fine?” She's like, “Are you sure?” Then she will move on. Basically, step by step, in small pieces just to make sure that everybody is on the same page.
Rob, Shay, and Angela provide insights on how faculty who engage students in the learning process through questions and group work created a learning community where students felt more comfortable asking questions and made learning more rewarding for students. By asking students if they need more examples and working together, faculty participants were considering students’ needs. Student participants also recognized the sincerity in their faculty member’s efforts to help them understand the material and be successful. Though the corequisite courses were being taught online, synchronously, faculty participants were able to still build community because of the types of questions and activities they used to engage students with one another. Ultimately, by creating a space where learning can be done collaboratively (even through a virtual environment), students feel more comfortable to be vulnerable and ask questions which is important within the corequisite classroom.
Showing Empathy and Care
Lastly, corequisite faculty recognized their students were managing multiple responsibilities that can make it challenging for some students to complete assignments, especially with the COVID-19 pandemic and online learning. Rather than blaming students for falling behind, faculty participants in our study demonstrated non-deficit approaches to help students get back on track. Specifically, faculty shared how they proactively reach out to students to check in and provide extra help to show students they care. A math faculty member described how he did this: You have to be sure your students trust you. How do they trust you is by doing your job, by answering their emails. If they’re absent one day, you call them or you text them, “Are you okay?” If they miss a test, you email and say, “I hope you know that you missed this test. I’ll give you this [extension].” You have to have empathy . . . You have to put yourself in their situation. You cannot just say, “I cannot believe they can’t add two fractions?” You got to understand they have limitations and you're there to help them, not to criticize. – Moe, Math Faculty
Moe’s description shows his recognition that learning goes beyond what is going on in class and requires building trust and having empathy to demonstrate to students that faculty are there to help. Similarly, another math faculty member discussed how she checks in with students: Teaching online even though we feel more isolated, it gives us more reasons to kind of check in. “I didn’t see you in class last week. What’s going on?” . . . That's one of the things I have to say—because so many students have had so many horrific experiences. I mean just horrific experiences between caregiving for family members, losing family members, job loss, COVID and such—you name it. It’s just been very challenging for them. – Patricia, Math Faculty
Patricia’s comment reveals the empathy she has for students’ situations with the COVID-19 pandemic and reaching out to students illustrates how she cares about their well-being outside of her class. An English faculty member also shared an example of being flexible with students even more since the COVID-19 pandemic: I try to make them see that I’m ready to listen and give them maybe a little leeway because sometimes they’ll answer me and be like, “Yes, I was thinking about dropping [the coreq course]. I was afraid to say anything, but my mother died.” I had one student her mother died of COVID towards the end of last semester. She had been doing pretty well. She had told me that and then I didn’t hear from her. I gave her an incomplete. She finally came to me and I was like, “Okay. Well, you want to turn that paper in, so I can give you a grade?” Because she would’ve failed [if she didn’t]. – Linda, English Faculty
Linda understood that this student was not failing the class because of her academic abilities; rather, losing her mother had a significant impact on her priorities. Instead of punishing this student for a situation outside of her control, the empathy and flexibility shown by Linda provided this student with an opportunity to pass the corequisite course. Like many community colleges, UCC also has a policy that allows instructors to give students in corequisite courses an “in progress” grade rather than a failing grade. These types of institutional policies allow faculty to be more flexible and enables conditions that create more validating learning environments.
Along with the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning created additional and unfamiliar challenges for students. An English faculty member described how she helps her students with online issues: I have a couple of students this semester, they’ve never done online classes. When I tell them upload a file [and] as I see them struggling, I will give them my cellphone number and I’ll just say, “Give me a call now” and I’ll walk them through it. It is about the students. That is my whole teaching philosophy. – C.M., English Faculty
C.M. shows how she cares by going out of her way to assist students who are struggling not with academic content, but online skills. Again, rather than punishing students for not uploading an assignment correctly, C.M. chooses to show them how to use the online system so next time the same students will have one less thing to worry about as they complete their assignment.
Student participants also mentioned how faculty proactively reaching out and communicating was important to their success. An English student talked about his faculty member’s responsiveness: She’s [faculty] pretty good at responding in class, but then if I have a question and I have to email her—for that first one, for the English [college-level course]—if I email her about a question or anything, she’s like on point and responds right away. – Rob, English Student
Because of the standard set by this English faculty member, Rob knew their timely responses to his questions showed they cared. Rather than shut down when issues arise, Rob and other students are more likely to open-up to faculty who have been responsive knowing that they care. The anxiety students might initially have to ask questions is also lessened when faculty actively communicate with students early on. A math student also shared how his faculty member helped him at the beginning of the semester as he adjusted to the course: If there are quizzes or anything, she’s [faculty] there to help. I sat down with the quizzes I remember the first week. We had a quiz or something—an assignment—and I missed it because I didn’t look or whatever. She opened it for me, so she’s really helpful and I was like she actually cared. – Michael, Math Student
For Michael, this faculty member’s willingness to help him early in the semester showed him they cared about his success, which ultimately lets Michael know if other issues arise he can ask for guidance rather than drop the course. Another math student shared how a faculty member made her feel more comfortable in class: I feel like he [faculty] was really focused on everybody’s interest. He felt like everybody’s weakness could help other students learn. I felt that he understood the quiet, more confused students like myself at the moment feeling lost, and I felt like he addressed it in a great and professional way. – Cindy, Math Student
Cindy felt seen by her math faculty even when she did not seek help—meaning that her instructor knew the lack of response meant students might need another approach to learning the math problem. Students also appreciated when faculty checked-in on them. A math student shared how a faculty member made her feel more comfortable by simply asking the class how they are doing: Before class, we will have talks like, “How are you? How was your day? How was your weekend? Is everybody doing okay?” That's how she starts off every single time we come in. She’s always trying to make sure that we are good before we start. I really, really like that about her too. – Gozie, Math Student
Because the faculty member asked about students’ lives outside their academics, it demonstrated to students that the faculty member was interested and cared about them as people and not just students. Students can recognize when faculty are genuinely interested and care about them. This then makes students feel more comfortable to approach faculty when they have questions or challenges. Our faculty participants acknowledged it was their responsibility to help corequisite students by being flexible with deadlines and assignments. For these faculty, punishing students for missing deadlines contradicted the purpose of corequisite courses, which is to give students more time to practice and learn the material.
Additionally, being flexible as an instructor should not suggest academic rigor decreases. Faculty participants explained how students must still complete and do well on the required assignments and exams to pass the course. Instead, faculty participants recognized being flexible and understanding can benefit students’ success in the long-term. For students, knowing someone else cared about their success helped motivate them to work through the challenges they might face as they continue with college-level coursework. Though students may encounter faculty in the future who are not as flexible and caring, students will have developed the necessary skills to approach faculty and manage challenges that may arise during an academic term.
Discussion
Though it is essential to study policy reforms at scale, community college students interact and spend most of their time with faculty in the classroom. Having a better understanding of what happens inside the corequisite-developmental classroom is critical and deserves more consideration. Our study contributes to the developmental education literature by bringing attention to the teaching practices within specifically the corequisite model since it is a newer model gaining popularity nationally to address low completion rates within developmental education (CCA, 2021; T. Miller et al., 2022; Ran & Lin, 2022). Though different factors (i.e., work-life responsibilities, personal challenges, previous education) may impact students’ success in the corequisite model, the one factor corequisite faculty can control is their teaching and how they interact with students in their classroom. Because most of our faculty participants taught both courses within the corequisite model, we also gained a better understanding of their approach to teaching and how they utilized the corequisite course to support the college-level course. Teaching both courses also allowed faculty participants more time to develop relationships with their students and more opportunities to monitor students’ progress and provide feedback.
This focus on classroom and teaching strategies is even more important in developmental education reform efforts since racially minoritized students are often overrepresented in developmental education and experience invalidating learning environments (Acevedo-Gil et al., 2015; Malcom-Piqueux et al., 2022; Roberts, 2020). Our study supports previous research that has shown the significant role classroom pedagogy plays in addressing the equity issues that remain within developmental education (Ching, 2018; Emblom-Callahan et al., 2019; T. Lundberg et al., 2018; Mellow et al., 2011). In our study, faculty participants recognized the potential of the students in their corequisite classes and viewed it as their responsibility, rather than a burden, to help students succeed. Faculty participants also demonstrated an asset-based mindset that guided their perceptions of corequisite students while also informing their teaching strategies. These faculty were willing to adjust their teaching to meet the learning needs of their students rather than stigmatizing students for not immediately understanding the course material.
A more recent study by Dadgar et al. (2023) explored factors that contribute to student success in gateway math courses by examining student, course, and faculty administrative data from four California community colleges. Specifically, Dadgar et al. (2023) found that passing the gateway math course was more dependent on the faculty member who taught the course than any of the other factors they examined (e.g., previous academics, high school they attended, student demographics). The qualitative data from our study adds to this research by giving voice to faculty and racially minoritized students in corequisite courses while also highlighting teaching strategies that have shown success within this newer model.
The findings from our study also support prior research that used validation theory to examine student success within classroom spaces and the positive impact it can have on student outcomes (Castillo, 2020; Perez-Cancino, 2022; Quiñonez & Olivas, 2020). Within developmental education, Acevedo-Gil et al. (2015) found Latinx students experienced moments of invalidation from faculty which negatively influenced their confidence and educational aspirations. Our study contributes to this body of literature by showing how corequisite faculty were able to provide both forms of academic and interpersonal validation from creating learning environments that helped build confidence in their academic abilities, while also recognizing who they are as people outside the classroom (Rendón, 1994; Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). Though validating learning environments are important in all classrooms, it is even more critical for corequisite-developmental education classrooms because it can determine whether or not students are allowed to continue with their education to earn a college credential and achieve their career goals. Our findings illuminate the importance of validating environments in corequisite courses—a promising developmental education reform model and yet, students are still vulnerable to dropping out or stopping out if they cannot transition into future college-level courses.
These findings also contribute to how validating classrooms can be achieved through online, synchronous learning environments. Though online learning has become more prevalent within higher education, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the challenges and inequities with online learning along with opportunities for growth (M. D. Miller, 2021). This requires developmental education reform efforts like the corequisite model to also adjust teaching strategies to best meet students’ needs in online learning environments. Faculty participants in our study were able to still apply teaching strategies that validated students (e.g., checking-in, group activities) and engage students in the learning process while online. Our study shows that validating learning environments are possible through online, synchronous courses, particularly within corequisite-developmental education courses.
Utilizing forms of validation within one’s teaching is not something learned right away, but instead requires a willingness to continuously grow as an instructor (Rendón & Muñoz, 2011). The corequisite faculty in our study often drew from their own backgrounds and experiences while also reflecting on ways to improve their teaching. Though faculty participants were already incorporating forms of validation within their teaching, they aspired to learn more—new strategies, activities, assignments—to better support their corequisite students who are the most vulnerable to stopping or dropping out of college. Our interviews with faculty participants showed that they understood that their students’ needs frequently change, which required them to make adjustments and be flexible with the course structure. Yet, one strategy that did not change for faculty participants was always believing in their students’ abilities and showing that they cared about their students’ success beyond the corequisite course. These findings support other research studies that also identified faculty as an important piece to creating more validating, culturally responsive, and student-centered learning environments that lead to student success (Acevedo-Gil et al. 2015; Doran, 2021; Nuñez et al., 2010; Rendón, 2009).
Overall, developmental education reform efforts like the corequisite model will continue to reproduce inequities until dominant pedagogical approaches are replaced by more validating, student-centered strategies. Our study brings to the forefront how corequisite faculty who incorporate validating teaching strategies can alter the learning environment that has historically ignored the needs of racially minoritized students in developmental education. Next, we offer recommendations that can help support corequisite faculty as they develop and incorporate more validating teaching strategies.
Recommendations
Because our study highlighted the important role of faculty within the corequisite model, we recommend for community college leaders to offer professional development opportunities where corequisite faculty can begin to reflect and develop ways to integrate validating, student-centered teaching strategies. Other developmental education research has also encouraged institutions to provide more resources towards faculty development that promotes opportunities for faculty to receive mentorship and guidance that moves away from traditional teaching practices (Dadgar et al., 2023). This does not suggest that all professional development must be formal trainings. For example, faculty participants in our study mentioned they valued opportunities to learn from other corequisite faculty and a space to share teaching strategies. Thus, UCC created a faculty-led corequisite professional development series with sessions held every two months and that have been well attended. Simply offering a time and space where corequisite faculty can come together to share resources is just as valuable as formal trainings.
Other forms of professional development can be provided to help faculty learn more about who are the students in their corequisite classes, which at UCC were mostly Black and Latinx. Corequisite faculty can use this opportunity to learn about the white dominant norms that have set the standards of teaching, learning, and assessment, particularly within math education (Battey & Leyva, 2016; Malcom-Piqueux et al., 2022; Martin, 2019). To effectively validate students, faculty must begin to acknowledge the inequities that remain within education and teaching, while also making efforts to unlearn deficit ways of teaching.
Based on previous research, professional development can also involve an equity audit of corequisite math and English syllabi (Ching, 2018; Dowd & Bensimon, 2015; Malcom-Piqueux et al., 2022)—what are the readings, word problems, examples, assignments being offered to students and are they representative of our racially minoritized students? Within corequisite courses, faculty can begin to reflect on how classroom discussions and group work incorporates cross-cultural communications where racially minoritized students feel comfortable contributing by providing their own perspectives and lived experiences. For instance, students in in our study appreciated when faculty made connections to their interests (e.g., future career goals, music, authors from their racial/ethnic backgrounds) when it came to the examples, activities, and assignments in the corequisite course. As corequisite faculty develop a greater awareness of the racially minoritized students in their classes, they are then able to adjust their teaching strategies to better engage students in the course content and learning process.
Developing validating teaching strategies is a process that begins with intentionally reflecting and evaluating one’s teaching materials, syllabi, and instructional practices. Corequisite faculty must be willing and open to modify their teaching in ways that will improve the success of the racially minoritized students in their corequisite courses. Ultimately, validating learning environments within corequisite courses that build racially minoritized students’ confidence and motivation can establish the foundation needed to increase students’ academic momentum (Wang, 2017) that can lead to persistence and graduation.
Conclusion
Teaching corequisite courses well requires not only knowledge of the course content, but also an understanding of the diverse students in the classroom. Both the faculty and students in our study attributed student success within corequisite courses to the interpersonal connections and engaging learning environment modeled by faculty. Research should then amplify the voices and experiences of faculty who have enhanced student success while teaching corequisite courses, rather than simply focusing on what faculty are doing wrong (Grubb, 2002). Our study purposefully brings attention to highly effective corequisite faculty and the students who have benefited from validating teaching strategies. As more states implement new developmental education models, our study demonstrates how validating learning environments can help enhance student success and ensure more equitable outcomes.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Strong Start to Finish - Education Commission of the States.
Notes
Authors
SUSANA H. HERNÁNDEZ is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at Northern Arizona University, 801 Knoles Dr, Flagstaff, AZ 86011; Email:
LYLE MCKINNEY is a professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Houston, 3657 Cullen Blvd, Houston, TX 77204; Email:
ANDREA BURRIDGE is the Interim Vice Chancellor of Strategy, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness at Houston Community College, 3100 Main St, Houston, TX 77002; Email:
CATHERINE O’BRIEN was the Associate Vice Chancellor of College Readiness (retired) at Houston Community College, 3100 Main St, Houston, TX 77002; Email: