According to research: Corequisite results over time
Author: Kathleen Almy
I’m starting a new monthly blog feature called “According to research…” I regularly mention research findings when I’m working with colleges and universities on their math redesigns. I also get asked often for a study on a particular topic. Research is an incredibly important component to redesigns, but it takes time finding the articles that touch on the topic you want to learn about. And when you do, it takes time to go through them. Some studies I read are over 100 pages. Finding time to read them is no easy feat.
To save you time and get the most impact from important research on math reforms, I’ll be picking an article every month and providing this information:
Article name, authors, and link
Major findings
How you can use the research in your work
Let’s get started.
Corequisite Mathematics Remediation: Results Over Time and in Different Contexts
by Alexandra W. Logue, Daniel Douglas, Mari Watanabe-Rose
This 2019 study is a follow-up to the original randomized controlled trial the authors studied on corequisite remediation in 2016. In that 2016 study, students at the same placement level (elementary algebra) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: elementary algebra, elementary algebra with support, or college-level statistics with support (a corequisite course). The students in statistics passed at a rate 16 percentage points higher and 11 percentage points higher, respectively, than students in the other two groups. In addition to significantly higher pass rates, students in the corequisite statistics course were more motivated and earned more credits in the year after taking the statistics course. The 2019 study looked at the student performance in the three years after students took the corequisite statistics course.
Major findings on students from the corequisite statistics course: (independent of race or ethnicity)
They were more likely to graduate
They were more likely to transfer to a 4-year college/university
They were at least as likely to pass their general education requirements
They were more likely to pass advanced math courses if their major did not require college algebra
Students with a D in the corequisite statistics course had a higher graduation rate than those taking the elementary algebra course
Fewer students in the corequisite statistics course passed college algebra than those who had taken elementary algebra
More students in the corequisite statistics course passed precalculus and calculus than those who taken elementary algebra
The academic performance of the corequisite statistics students was as good or better than the elementary algebra students for the three years following the experiment
How you can use this research
We are not doing harm with corequisite remediation.
As math faculty, this type of research was initially surprising to me but also reassuring. I would not have guessed that students at the elementary algebra level could pass a corequisite statistics course. But I was wrong. Not only could they pass but their other outcomes, like graduation, were as good as if not significantly better than the students who took developmental math. Faculty are often skeptical of short term successes that appear to be “magic bullets.” Corequisite remediation isn’t the solution for every student, but it does work for many students, and not only in the short term. In the long term, these students are better off than those having had remediation. In other words, we have not done harm to them by putting them in a college level course with help.
2. Corequisite remediation can help to close equity gaps.
Throughout the study, the results were repeatedly stated to be independent of race or ethnicity. This is no small finding nor small feat. Anyone in math reform is looking to do more than make things better on average; we want to see each group of students, when disaggregated by various characteristics, to have improved outcomes. Again, corequisites are not a magic bullet. They do not erase equity gaps, but they definitely help reduce them. That result cannot be overstated and should not be ignored.
3. Standalone developmental courses are not the “gold standard” of supporting students with math needs.
It’s easy to perceive corequisite remediation is a subpar substitute for a full developmental math course. The “just in time” approach doesn’t appear to provide students with the natural development of all the topics we believe are necessary to fully understand mathematics. However, the data doesn’t bear this out. Students are more successful having taken a corequisite, not only in the college level math course needed but also with other metrics like graduation and motivation. These goals of completion and graduation are just as important as the understanding a student gains from a course. One without the other defeats the purpose of higher education.
As faculty, it’s hard to give up full courses as prerequisites, but I think it’s important to respect the research, particularly since these findings keep appearing in other studies. They are not flukes or one-offs. This has taken me time to accept, and I know it will take other math faculty time to accept as well. It defies our basic understanding of learning math and its progression. But it’s something we need to wrestle with and not deny, even though it challenges our assumptions.
4. We need to weigh the pros and cons of a prerequisite semester.
Another semester to get students prepared has been our go-to approach to increasing preparedness in higher education for decades. But that additional semester has detrimental impacts on graduation rates as well as motivation. Starting in a college-level course has an impact on how students perceive themselves and if they can be successful in college. Likewise, students starting in developmental courses often perceive themselves to not belong in college. Those perceptions have many impacts, both short term and long term. Unless it’s absolutely necessary, we should not add another semester to a student’s sequence. Preparedness still needs to be addressed but how and when, such as using a corequisite course, are key to helping students meet their longterm goals.
What’s next?
As positive as these findings are, they do not address all situations students may be in such as extremely low students or those needing college algebra, not statistics. More research is needed and thankfully, it exists. Next month, I will be writing about the findings coming out of California, where they have made major changes to all developmental pathways, including those requiring college algebra. If you’re anxious to read the study in the meantime, here is a link to a presentation, brief, and the full research document.