.~ ... 3.5.4..“ me. z... 1.92.... 2 .12.: . 5 .vaaQIov..._.a,l’-€ 5. 14?. {w ....u.rd......... ..me . f. ..r _ . p '3; I u Q‘f’.’ ‘5 I.“ 33.1.. A.‘ - u b x. R VF S ? Ern‘. Vinyl! r A ..t .” it»: .1... v..- I!» I . . .5. . a... . . ..‘ul...v ..3 fl , . . 15.95.. .. . ._ . ro .lrrflcl. 11 . .um . A c. v.» ‘13:. u t t: 2.“. ...a n: . . . nu}, I... . . . . . . . V ,. . . . .. 7‘1... 1.: u, :. . H V 4— . . r. . A N I A I; I4 . . v . . . . .,. , . \ . .. ,. t , r. v . V o: v .. p , . . . . 1 .. -. . .. . . . . . , .- d . . . . v- ‘ . a a . . . . ... .b ,1... ur. . . . . .1. .v r . ...ryv....ntr., ’..1.3- '23.: 799414.23. .. .3... 51.3.... v.9“... xi! 4... Ant... 3 n. .27.}; v n . . . -1. , ' . .. iii... a.¢u?£.xfl. 2.. .x . . .132... .14 3.4435? 55.3%53 cgumfifig.§hs .._- TH ESI$ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Assessment of a Remedial English Program for Academically Disadvantaged Young Adults at Western Christian College firesented by Delmar F. Lovej oy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed. D. Jegreein Continuing Education Date ‘ Jm 28. 1973 0-7839 , O { BINDEFY INC. -" QY BWDERS :92}; mm" ABSTRACT ASSESSMENT OF A REMEDIAL ENGLISH PROGRAM FOR ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED YOUNG ADULTS AT WESTERN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE by Delmar Franklin Lovejoy This study was designed to learn whether the teach- ing of Basic Grammar as a remedial device for academically disadvantaged students at Western Christian College has. significantly affected the level of achievement in English l'and their later choices and achievement as students of WCC. It examined the relationship between achievement in English 1, retention in college, choice of major, propor— tion who graduate, achievement in six frequently taken courses and enrollment in each of two different remedial programs that have been used at the college. A population of students designated as academically disadvantaged from first-time-in-college freshmen (1961- 1971) were placed in three different groups, one each on the basis of‘two types of remedial treatment and a third Delmar Franklin Lovejoy which received no remediation. The groups-were: Group I, academically disadvantaged students who took Basic Grammar concurrently with English 1; Group II, academically disad- vantaged students who took Basic Grammar prior to enrolling in English 1; and Group III, academically disadvantaged students who enrolled in English 1 without Basic Grammar. Investigation was made: 1) to ascertain the rela- tionship, if any, between two modes of remedial English taken by academically disadvantaged students and one non- remediated group as indicated by their perfOrmance in Eng- lish l and their subsequent performance in selected courses in college from the fall of 1961 to the spring of 1972; 2) to determine if length of enrollment in college varies be— tween Group I, Group II, and Group III of the academically disadvantaged students, and the difference, if any, between the length of enrollment of regular college students and the academically disadvantaged student; 3) to ascertain if students identified as academically disadvantaged students choose particular courses of study in disproportionate num- bers and to determine the difference, if any, in the grade point averages of the academically disadvantaged students Delmar Franklin Lovejoy who graduated and all college students who graduated in the same fields of study; and 4) to compare the first semester composite grade point averages of academically disadvantaged students with their length of stay at Western Christian. College. The Pearson product-moment correlation was calcu- lated to express the relationship between the scores on placement tests and grades received in English 1. A t-Test was used to test for significance of relationships between modes of remedial English or no-remedial English with Eng- lish 1 grades and to test for significance of relationships between modes of remedial English or no-remedial English with grades earned in selected subject areas. A t-Test was employed to measure significance of relationships in proportions between treatment groups and regular college students in number of years enrolled and disciplines studied. The principle conclusions were: 1. Neither of the two patterns of Basic Grammar produces significant improvement in English 1 as measured by grade point average. Delmar Franklin Lovejoy Neither of the two patterns of Basic Grammar improves the academically disadvantaged students' academic per- formance in six selected subject areas of later study as measured by grade point averages. Academic disadvantaged students who completed Basic Grammar prior to entering English 1 continued in college for the second year in larger proportions but thereafter there was no significant difference in length of enroll- ment of those who received remedial English treatment or between either of those groups and those who did not have remedial English. The academically disadvantaged students did choose dif- ferent courses of study than the regular college students. Seven disciplines were excluded from their choices of fields of study. No academically disadvantaged students chose the fields of Physics, English, Spanish, German, Art, Chemistry, Physics, or Behavioral Science. A sig- nificantly greater pr0portion of academically disadvan- taged students than of regular college students, graduated in Industrial Education, and they seemed to earn a Delmar Franklin Lovejoy moderately higher GPA than did the regular college student. In twelve of the disciplines there were no significant differenCes in percentage of degrees granted between the academically disadvantaged stu- dents and regular college students, nor were there significant differences in GPA. Low composite grade point averages at the end of the first grading period at SMC of the academically disad- vantaged students were predictive of dropouts. The principle recommendations were: That the moratorium placed on the requirement that acad demically disadvantaged students enroll in the patterns of Basic Grammar previously employed be continued. That administrators of the Office of Admissions and Records at WCC develop more precise diagnosis for identification of the academically disadvantaged student. That administrators of the Office of Admissions and Records at WCC establish procedure for collecting and Delmar Franklin Lovejoy storing information concerning attrition to provide data for future research of the "dropout" problem. The Counseling Center should develop, coordinate, and implement special programs for the academiCally disad- vantaged student. These special programs should be of the type of individual consultation and remediation as opposed to the formal course. The Admissions Office should notify the Center.when an academically disad- vantaged student has enrolled at WCC. Upon receiving this information the Center should establish a working relationship with the student, diagnose the problem and start proceedings for the particular assistance needed, such as academic, social, or financial guidance. The Counseling Center should not be a "Remedial Center" but a clearing house to see that the academically dis- advantaged student is aware of the assistance available in a college community and that they are referred to and engaged by those services. That the policy of Open admission as utilized for the constituency that WCC serves should be extended to any Delmar Franklin Lovejoy student who because of suspected academic deficiency may be refused admittance. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY study: The following suggestions were made for further Research should be done with emphasis on.remediation through counseling, after such models as Upward Bound and tutorial programs that have been developed to assist students in minority groups. Studies should be conducted to ascertain the adap- tability of such counseling programs for the aca- demic disadvantaged student at WCC. Research designed to determine factors of motivation, self-concepts, financial problems, early marriage, social problems and others which interfere with academic performance should be conducted. ASSESSMENT OF A REMEDIAL ENGLISH PROGRAM FOR.ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED YOUNG ADULTS AT WESTERN CHRISTIAN COLLEGE BY Delmar Franklin Lovejoy A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 03’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is indebted to the chairman of his doctoral committee, Professor Russell J. Kleis, for his sympathetic guidance and constructive criticism during this study. To Dr. Gilbert Mouser, Dr. Roy Niemeyer, and Dr. Julian Smith the writer extends appreciation for their willingness to serve on the graduate committee and for their personal and professional assistance. And finally, the most gratitude is owed to my wife, Dolores, sons Morris and Marc, and daughter Faith for their patience and love that made this disSertation a reality. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . Definitions. . . . . . . . . . Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . Limitations. . . . . L . . . . Summary and Overview . .'. . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . Discussion of Remedial English Discussion of College Dropouts SWrYO I O I O O O I I O O 0 METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . Page ix 11 12 13 16 16 23 26 28 28 28 35 39 55 56 97 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 98 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Suggestions for Further Study. . . . . . 108 Concluding Statement . . . . . . . . . . 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. DISTRIBUTION OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN FRESHMAN CLASSES BY YEARS AT WCC (1961-1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '57 2. DISTRIBUTION OF ACT ENGLISH STANDARD SCORES AND ENGLISH 1 GRADES FOR ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS AT WCC (1961-1971). . . . . . . . . 59 3. COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH 1 OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP I AND II AND NONREMEDIA- TION GROUP III AT wcc (1961-1971). . . . . . 61 4. COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH 1 OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP II AT WCC (1961-71). . . . 62 5. COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH 1 OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP I AND NONREMEDIATION GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) . . . . . . . . 63 6. COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH 1 OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP II AND NONREMEDIATION GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) . . . . . . . . 65 7. COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS IN SIX SELECTED COURSES AT WCC (1962-1972) . 67 LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Table 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. GRADE POINT AVERAGES BY GROUPS OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN SIX SELECTED COURSES AT WCC (1962-1972) . . . . . . . . . t SCORES AND CRITICAL t VALUES BETWEEN GPA IN SIX SELECTED COURSES FOR ACADEMICALLY DIS- ADVANTAGED STUDENTS AT WCC (1962-1972) . . . PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS RECEIVING BACCALAUREATE DEGREES BY FRESHMAN CLASSES AT WCC (1961-1971) . . . PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS RECEIVING ASSOCIATE DEGREES BY FRESHMAN CLASSES AT WCC (1961-1971). . . . . COMPARISON BETWEEN IDENTICAL DEGREES EARNED BY ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND REGULAR COLLEGE STUDENTS FOR FRESHMAN CLASSES (1961-1968). .‘. . . . . . . . . . . t SCORES AND CRITICAL t VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND REGULAR COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO GRADUATED IN IDENTICAL FIELDS AT WCC (BY FRESHMAN CLASSES 1961-1971) . . . COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO FORMS OF REMEDIATION FOR ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF SUCH STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE AND THE GPA THEY ACHIEVE IN IDENTICAL FIELDS OF STUDY AT WCC (BY FRESH- MAN CLASSES 1961-1971) . . . . . . . . . . . t SCORES AND CRITICAL t VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GPA AND PERCENTAGE OF DEGREES EARNED IN IDENTICAL FIELDS FOR ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS GROUP I AND II (BY FRESHMAN CLASSES 1961-1968). . . . . . . . . vi Page 68 70 74 75 77 79 82 83 LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Table ‘ Page 16. COMPARISON BETWEEN CUMULATIVE GPA OF REMEDIATED GROUP I AND REMEDIATED GROUP II IN IDENTICAL DEGREES EARNED AT-WCC (1961- 1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 17. COMPARISON BETWEEN RETENTION RATES OF REMEDIATED ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND REGULAR COLLEGE STUDENTS AT WCC (1961-1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 18. COMPARISON BETWEEN RETENTION IN THE SECOND YEAR OF COLLEGE FOR REMEDIATED AND NON- REMEDIATED ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AT WCC (1961-1971). . . . . . . . . 88 19. COMPARISON BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF RETENTION OF REMEDIATED GROUP I AND REMEDIATED GROUP II OF THE ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENT AT WCC (1961-1972) . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . 89 20. COMPARISON BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF RETENTION INTO THE SECOND YEAR OF COLLEGE FOR REMEDIATED GROUP I AND NONREMEDIATED . GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) . . . . . . . . 91 21. COMPARISON BETWEEN PERCENTAGE or RETENTION INTO THE SECOND YEAR OF COLLEGE FOR REMEDIATED GROUP II AND NONREMEDIATED GROUP III AT WCC-(l961-1971) . . . . . . . . 92 22. COMPARISON BETWEEN FIRST SEMESTER CUMULATIVE GPA OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN TERMS OF LENGTH OF ENROLLMENT AT WCC ' (1961-1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . 95 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Appendix 23. CONVERSION CHART: ACT, SAT, SCAT, COOP ENGLISH COMPARATIVE SCORES . . . . . . 24. INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR GROUP I TREATMENT. . 25. INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR GROUP II TREATMENT . 26. INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR GROUP III TREATMENT. viii Page 118 119 124 129 LIST OF APPENDICES Append ix Page A. DATA GATHERING FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 116 B. CONVERSION CHART. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 118 C. INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR GROUP TREATMENT . . . . . 119 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Western Christian College1 is a private, independent, coeducational, Christian, liberal arts college. It is one of ten colleges sponSored by a Protestant church in the United States. It serves and is supported by members of vthe church residing in the states of Colorado, Idaho, Mon- tana, Nebraska, and Wyoming. Its educational mission is more than the training of clergy. A statement frOm the 1971-72 college bulletin defines its goal.2 Education is intended to preserve, transmit and advance knowledge, but Western Christian College also undertakes to develop Competent Christian men and women with high moral prin- ciples who will readily identify themselves with a redeptive approach to the world's needs. 1 1Western Christian College and Maple, Wyoming are fictitious names assigned to a college and its community. However, the components of this research are factual. 2Bulletin of Western Christian College, Maple, Wyoming, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1971-72, p. 129. Church—related institutions should be responsive to the needs of their constituents. As the technological com- plexity Of a society increases, the level Of education re- quired to escape the social and economic consequences Of being considered uneducated rises. Competent Christian men and women Of the denomina- tion are believed to be needed to serve in the ministerial, teaching, medical, and other services Of the church at home and abroad. Others are needed to engage in business pur- suits, government services, research activities, and in all professions on all levels, to become a vital part Of a so- ciety and thus constitute a strong SUpportive laity. There are many persons within the denomination who have completed secondary school who perceive themselves as seriously handicapped, invisibly branded as "academically disadvantaged" because of low scores on college entrance examinations, less than a C average in secondary schools, or ranking in the lower half Of their high school graduat- ing classes. Providing higher educational Opportunities for each student has often been neglected by colleges and universities. NO social or intellectual change can be ignored by the church if it is intent upon becoming relevant to society which it seeks to influence and to which it would bear its Christian witness. With a mission of serving any who desire further Christian denominational higher educa- tion WCC keeps an Open door to students who represent a broad range Of intellectual abilities. In attempting tO meet the educational needs of those at the lower end of this range, a number Of problems have been encountered. One Of these problems has been that WCC'S attempts to meet the special need Of students with deficiencies in English appeared less than successful. Beginning in the fall of 1961, WCC introduced a remedial program in English designed to assist academically disadvantaged students in learning the fundamentals Of writing, reading, and speaking at a level established by the English department. All beginning freshmen were re- quired to take a battery of placement tests, which con- sisted of the School College Ability Test, SCAT (this test was replaced in 1964 by the American College Test, ACT), the Cooperative English Test, the Nelson Denny Reading Test, and the Missouri College English Test. From the fall Of 1961 through the spring Of 1963, students who scored under a raw score Of forty-seven on the Cooperative English Test, and from the fall of 1964 through the spring Of 1972, those who achieved a standard score Of fifteen or lower on the ACT, were operationally defined as academically disadvantaged for college level work and were required to enroll for a semester in Basic Grammar 01, concurrent with English 1. All others pro- ceeded directly into English 1. Between the fall of 1961 and the spring of 1966, 2,638 grades were recorded in English 1 and 2. There was a failure rate Of 4.7 per cent. In the fall Of 1966, a different approach to the remedial program was begun. It lasted through the spring of 1970. The program required that the academically dis- advantaged student be excluded from English 1 until he re- ceived a C grade for satisfactory completion Of Basic Grammar 01. The remedial program was extended from a one- semester to a two-semester course. This meant, in effect, that such students were delayed one full year in entering English 1, a basic course for almost all college study. During this period the failure rate for 3,200 grades re- corded in English 1 and 2 was 4.5 per cent. It should be Observed that the 3,200 grades represent regular college freshmen and second-year academically disadvantaged stu- dents in English 1 and 2. The administration was concerned with the fact that a course which was intended to assist the academically dis- advantaged student in passing freshman English had appar- ently failed. The administration insisted that the English department suspend its remedial program until research could be conducted. During the 1970-71 academic year, no remedial program was attempted. Western Christian College was visited in April Of 1972 by accreditation teams from the regional Association of Colleges and Schools, NCATE, and General Educational Board of the church. Recommendations Of these groupswere that remedial programs be reinstated at WCC to meet the specific needs Of its academically disadvantaged students, and that steps be taken to reduce the overall dropout rate. These recommendations require research, decision and action. Should the former remedial programs be reestab- lished, or a new approach be developed? What students have constituted the dropout problem? Were they the academic- ally disadvantaged students? Because little was known about the remedial program and the academically disadvan- taged student it was proposed that research be done. This study has constituted one step in that research. Purpose Of the Study The assessment Of the remedial English program in terms Of later performance of the academically disadvan- taged students was of concern to the faculty and adminis- tration Of WCC. It was of special concern to the academ- ically disadvantaged young adult whose interest it was to escape the social and economic consequences presented by inadequate education. This research was undertaken to investigate the performance in English 1, subsequent academic achievement and other selected variables Of the academically disadvan- taged young adult at WCC. The variables were: perform-' ance on placement tests, patterns of remediation, grades received in English 1, grades received in courses taken by most students at WCC, major fields Of study in which stu- dents finally graduated, years students were retained in college and composite first semester grade point average (GPA). Questions were addressed by ascertaining relation- ships among the different factors, tO be specific: 1. What percentage of entering freshmen each year were designated as academically disadvantaged because they received a standard score of 15 or below on the English section of the ACT? 2. What was the correlation between English ACT standard score for entering freshman each year from 1961-71 and grades earned in English 1? 3. Did academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment receive higher grades in English 1 than those academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment? If the answer was yes, which of the two remedial groups received higher grades? 4. Did regular college students receive higher grades in each of the selected courses (American History, Survey of Civilization, Teaching of Jesus, Foundations of Apostolic Movement, English Literature, and Speech) than did the academically disadvantaged students? 5. Did academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment receive higher grades in each of the selected courses (American History, Survey of Civilization, Teaching of Jesus, Foundations Of Apos- tolic Movement, English Literature, and Speech) than did academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment? If the answer is yes, which Of the two remedial groups received higher grades?' 6.’ Did academically disadvantaged students even- tually graduate from WCC? If so, in what proportions? How did these proportions compared with proportions of regular college students? How long did it take for aca- demically disadvantaged students to graduate? 7. In what disciplines did the academically dis- advantaged students earn degrees? What were the differ- ences, if any, between the proportions of academically disadvantaged students who graduated and the proportions Of regular college students who graduated in each disci- pline in which degrees were earned? What was the differ- ence, if any, between the cumulative GPA of academically disadvantaged students and regular college students at graduation in identical fields Of study? 8. What was the difference, if any, between the total combined cumulative GPA in all fields of study be- tween Group I and Group II? 9. What were the differences, if any, among the cumulative GPA of the three academically disadvantaged groups at graduation in identical fields Of study? 10. Did retention in college of any or all groups of academically disadvantaged students differ from that of the student body as a whole? 11. Did retention in college differ between reme- dial English treatment groups Or between either or both groups and those academically disadvantaged students who received no treatment? If the answer was yes, which group of students remained in college longer? 12. Did the first semester composite GPA vary be- tween those academically disadVantaged students who re- Ceived remedial English treatment and those who did not? Were the differences in length of stay in college within each group of the academically disadvantaged students correlated positively or negatively with differences in first semester composite GPA? Definitions l. Academically disadvantaged student. This term, as used in this study, denotes those students who had a standard score of fifteen or below on the English section 10 Of the ACT, or a raw score Of forty-seven or below on the Cooperative English Test. See Appendix A for a conversion table that establishes comparable scores on various tests. 2. Regular college students were those who had a standard score of sixteen or above on the English section Of the ACT, or forty-eight or above on the Cooperative English Test. 3. Remedial program was defined as a program with the goal of removing deficiencies so that students might enter a program for which they previously were not judged to be academically eligible. Operationally, for this study, the remedial program was a course entitled Basic Grammar. For Group I it was a one-semester course to which academically disadvantaged students were assigned concur- rently with their participation in English 1 and other freshman level studies. For Group II it was a two-semester course to which academically disadvantaged students were assigned prior to enrOllment in English 1. 4. Dropout referred to those students who left WCC. The term would more appropriately be called institutional dropout. It included, in addition to those who never re- enrolled at WCC, the students who requested transcripts to be sent to other colleges. ll 5. Selected Courses were: Speech, Literature, American History, Survey Of Civilization, Teaching Of Jesus, and Foundations Of Apostolic Movement. These six courses were usually taken by most Of the students at WCC. 6. Retention in college as used In this study re— ferred to students who continued as matriculated students at WCC. 7. Retention rate as used in this study referred to the percentage Of students who continued as matriculated students at WCC. Assumptions The research was based upon the following assump- tions: 1. A basic assumption was that minimal levels of skill in reading, writing, and speaking were critical for success in any college curriculum. 2. It was assumed that instructor bias in Basic Grammar would not be a relevant factor, inasmuch as one and the same instructor taught all the sections of Basic Grammar during the time period investigated in this study. 12 3. It was assumed that instructor's assigned grades were valid indicators of student achievement (See Limitations). Limitations 1. It was recognized that assumption number three was a major but weak point. However, in the descriptive- type study conducted, it was not deemed pragmatically appro- priate or necessary to employ more Objective measures, since judgments were, in fact, based upon grades and grade point averages, both basically dependent upon instructor judgment. 2. The instructor's knowledge that some of his students scored low on college entrance examinations may have, without his intention, biased his grading. 3. The study, having important aspects of a longi- tudinal study, may have been vulnerable to changes in gen- eral external conditions relevant to the problem being studied. 4. It was recognized that motivation was important in the learning process. The motivational factors that 13 drive different students to greater accomplishments than would be expected were not tested or controlled in the comparison groups. 5. The grading system Of A, B, C, D, and F was used for screening and categorizing students. It was rec- ognized that these symbols could be questioned as precise and valid measures Of achievement. However, given the purposes Of study, it was the measurement system being em- ployed and therefore the one to be incorporated in the assessment. 6. The fact that academically disadvantaged stu- dents assigned tO Group II took English 1 one year later may have biased their grades in that course because they were one year older and had had an additional year of col- lege that the other two groups Of academically disadvan- taged students had not had before enrolling in it. Summary and Overview Performance in English 1, more general academic achievement, retention in college, choice Of major field Of study, comparative grades in chosen fields and 14 proportions who finally graduate, among academically dis- advantaged students after completion Of remedial English at WCC comprises the focus Of this study. In the five chapters questions have been posed, significant data and relationships have been described and analyzed, and conclusions and recommendations have been presented. This chapter has presented the setting and an in- troduction to the problem, factors studied, purpose of the study, a set Of questions to be answered, definitions, assumptions, limitations, and a summary and overview. In Chapter II a selected literature concerned with remedial education, academically disadvantaged students, and attrition problems Of higher education is reviewed. A description of the research design and procedures, discussion Of the population and data needed and treatment of data and summary are included in Chapter III. The research findings and discussion are presented in Chapter IV. In Chapter V a summary of the study, conclusions drawn from it, recommendations, implications, and a con- cluding statement are found. 15 The next chapter is devoted to a review Of perti- nent literature which formed the framework and rationale for the study. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE As a framework and rationale for the study, litera- ture pertaining to the academically disadvantaged student was reviewed in light of the preceding questions. Discussion of Remedial English In addition to keeping an Open door to all who de- sired higher education, some colleges were attempting to serve those students whose intellectual abilities were low as measured by college entrance examinations. A recent in- vestigation of remedial programs reported that test scores were used in identifying low achieving students in 95 per cent Of the college surveyed. One-third of the colleges reported that they used the School and College Ability Test (SCAT) to identify students for placement purposes. The American Council of Education Test (ACE) was used by 16 17 21 per cent and the American College Test (ACT) by 18 per cent of the colleges. Other colleges used a variety of tests, including the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), and the College Qualification Test (CQT), and various state- administered placement tests.1 Low achieving students were typically identified as scoring below given percentile on one Of these standardized tests. The percentile most frequently used is in the elev- enth to fifteenth range. In addition to standardized test scores, many institutions used high school grades to iden- tify low-achieving students. These were typically reported as grade point averages and/or rank in graduation class. Most colleges used a C average as one criterion in identi- fying students eligible for regular college credit courses. Students ranking in the lower half Of their high school graduating classes were those most often identified as low achievers.2 Much of the research that has been done in freshman remedial English has been done in junior colleges. The 1Richard M. Bossone, Remedial English Instruction in California Public Junior Colleges: An Analysis and Evalua- tion Of Current Practices (Sacramento, Calif.: State Dept. Of Education, 1966). P. 13. 2Ibid., p. 14. 18 composition of the community junior college student body has changed drastically in the last twenty years. Previ- ously students were primarily concerned with traditional four-year college preparation. Today, by contrast, more and more students are entering the "Open door" whether or not they have a baccalaureate goal. Many of these students are considered incapable Of beginning regular college credit courses. They are students with academic defi- ciencies that must be remedied. Because Of rapid growth Of community colleges and the increasing enrollment of students with academic deficiencies, remedial programs have been adopted. Although there is near universal recog- nition Of the problem, only twenty per cent of the commun- ity junior colleges surveyed had designed special programs and curricula for academically underprepared students.l Community colleges were not alone in needing reme- dial programs. Private and public colleges have also Opened their "doors" to serve this type of student. In research conducted by Helen Garon at the University of Minnesota at Duluth (UMD) it was found that an average of lJohn Losak, "DO Remedial Programs Really WOrk?," Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu- cational Research Association, New York, February, 1971. 19 thirteen per cent of entering freshmen were placed in reme- dial English.1 Most colleges appear to let the student take his chances. Losak noted that "very little research regarding the success or failure of students with low ability is re- ported by the community college." Blocker states that "Those that do have so called developmental remedial pro- grams have frequently organized them in a haphazard fashion and have uniformly ignored the responsibility to evaluate their contribution honestly."2 In a 1968 publication, John E. Rouche stated that "with few exceptions, little research has been implemented to evaluate the effectiveness Of these remedial programs."3 Again Rouche notes that: NO national figures are available that reflect the millions-Of-dollars effort at remediation lHelen Garon, "DO Remedial English Students Even- tually Earn Degrees?," The Journal of the Conference on College Composition and Communications, Vol. 19, NO. 1 (February, 1968), p. 142. 2 Clyde Blocker, Robert Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr., The Two Year College: A Social Synthesis (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, InC., 1965), p. 208. 3John F. Rouche, Salvage, Redirection, or Custody? Remedial Education in the Community College (Washington, D.C.: American Assoc. Of Junior Colleges), p. 4. 20 by the nation's community colleges. Perhaps more important, there is little research to indicate whether or not such an effort is successful.1 Bossone, in his California Public Junior College study, states that the remedial programs were not highly successful. The large majority of students who enroll in remedial courses fail to complete those courses satisfactorily and are doomed to failure and are forced to terminate their education. In one typical California public junior college, Of the eighty per cent of the entering students who enrolled in the remedial English, only twenty per cent of that number continued on into regular college English courses.2 Stevenson, in a study of remedial programs for dis- advantaged students in ten public community colleges in Florida, identified the students who account for the high failure and drop-out rates as being from the lower end of the socio-economic structure Of the community. She also notes that learning was motivated by success, and that the student must be guided toward success.3 1Ibid., p. 42. 2Bossone, p. 15. 3Jane L. Stevenson, Implementing the Open Door: Compensatory Education in Florida's Community College, Phase II--English Composition (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1970) (ERIC). 21 The assigning Of letter grades has traditionally been the method of describing success or failure. Stevenson notes that regular A to F grades were given by five colleges of the ten she studied; A to C grades with various methods of avoiding failing grades (NC, W, or X) were given by four others. One college gives S (satisfactory) and N (audit). Only one college gives no credit at all for remedial courses. In general, the students in remedial English were being "evaluated" on a scale Of grades as given not only to those in remedial English but also to those students in Freshman English.l Arthur Cohen speaks more sharply about the marking system. He feels that it was a method for screening and sorting students; "it suggests to the students that they will be judged rather than taught"; it "sorted students on a scale that pitted one against another"; marked on a basis of how well "they performed in comparison with their fel- lows"; the "less able" were screened out.2 Ferrin, in speaking of the remedial classes, refers to them as an academic barrier. He stated that the nature 1Ibid., p. 25. 2Arthur M. Cohen, Dateline '79: Heretical Concgpts for the Community College (Beverly Hills, California: Glen- coe Press, 1969). P. 8. 22 of the curriculum and the types Of skills needed tO survive in the "academic jungle" tend to build the barrier higher. For many, the knowledge that they bring inferior reading and writing skills to the institution was enough tO keep them from attending. These and others viewed relegation to remedial courses as another piece of evidence that they were educational failures. According to research findings, students in such courses tended to achieve limited success in college. The Chicago Loop Junior College reported that only about one per cent Of the students enrolled in pro- grams of remedial courses and special counseling later suc- ceeded in the transfer curriculum. In a 1971 study of remedial programs at Miami Dade Junior College, little evidence was found to support their continuance. Results indicate that the program does not produce any meaningful differences in student withdrawal from college, is not effective in raising grade point average during the second semester Of col- lege enrollment to a C level and does not result in significantly higher scores on a reading or writing test when compared with the control ef- fects by race or sex.2 1R. Ferrin, Barriers to Universal Higher Education, Access Research Office College Examination Board, Palo Alto, California (March, 1971), p. 62. 2J. Losak, DO Remedial Programs Really Work? ERIC ED 047 975 (Feb. 1971), p. 15. 23 There were certain programs which do seem to be successful, such as the one at Forest Park Community Col- lege in St. Louis and the experiment in higher education at Southern Illinois University, but these were strongly oriented toward student interests and capabilities rather than institutional goals and prescribed requirements. Discussion of College Drop-outs College educators have coined the phrase “revolving door" in criticizing the extremely high attrition rates Of the academically disadvantaged student who has entered the "open door" of the community colleges. The open door was not a new concept. Hechinger quotes Dr. Lester Brailey, dean of City University Of New York's Office of Admission Services, "that when he entered Ohio State in the 1930's, that university had been practicing open admissions for 50 years."1 John Summerskill's findings concur with the above statement that 50 per cent of the freshmen drop out over a 1F. M. Hechinger;.“0pen Admissions: Prophets Of Doom Seem to Have Been Wrong," The New York Times (Sunday, March 28, 1971). 24 four-year period. He reviewed 35 different studies that cited drop-out rates for classes at hundreds of various col- leges and universities from 1913 to 1962. Median values were computed for the aggregate Of these studies which re- sulted in: median loss in four years, 50 per cent; median per cent graduated in four years, 37 per cent (transfers were not considered losses to higher education).1 Bernard Bond states that of the one million freshmen beginning college in America each fall, only one half will see commencement.2 The assistant superintendent for educa- tion of the disadvantaged in New York City schools, H. Schreiber, noted that the school holding power for 1959-71 would be as follows: For every 10 pupils in the fifth grade in 1959-60, 4.0 would enter colleges in the fall Of 1967 and 2.0 would be likely to earn 4-year degrees in 3 1971. In Astin's study of 1972, he found that close to one half (47 per cent) received a baccalaureate degree at 1Nevitt Sanford and John Summerskill, "Drop-outs from College," The American College (New York: Wiley and Sons). P. 630. 2Bernard Bond, "An Unsolved Mystery, College Stu- dents: Why They Drop Out," The Kiwanis Magazine, LIII (September, 1968), pp. 22-25. 3H. Schreiber, "Who Drops Out and Why," American Education, Vol. 6 (November, 1970). pp. 10-12. 25 the same institution four years after entering that institu- tion.1 According to Summerskill, there was a significant relationship between academic performance and college at- trition. He drew up a number of statements from his exten- sive study that describe this relationship: 1. The median value was 33%, i.e., one out of three dropouts occurred for academic reasons. 2. Academic failure was typically cited as the leading single cause of dropouts or as one of two or three leading causes-~depending upon the college studied. 3. The relationship between grades and attrition appears to be continuous in that the proba- bility of dropping out varies inversely with grade point averages throughout the whole distribution Of grades at a given college. 4. Prediction Of dropouts is better at the lower end Of the grade scale, i.e., students with poor grades are likely to drop out while stu- dents with excellent grades may drop out. 5. Poor failing grades at the beginning Of a college career are highly productive Of dropouts.2 1Astin Alexander, College Dropouts: A National Profile, ACE Research Reports, Vol. 7, NO. 1 (February, 1972). P. 19. 2Nevitt Sanford and John Summerskill, "Drop-outs from College," The American College (New York: Wiley and Sons), p. 649. 26 According to Summerskill, prior research does not permit the assumption that colleges have information on their dropouts. He states that as early as 1939 and 1948, McNeeley and MacIntosh, respectively, found that many insti- tutions possess no knowledge concerning percentage of drop- outs and that a canvass by Craven in 1957 had to be aban— doned because of a high percentage of blank and incomplete returns.1 In a later study, Astin found that: the few published national studies (e.g., Iffert, 1957; Trent and Medsker, 1968; Astin and Panos, 1969) suffer from one or more potentially ser- ious defects: incomplete Sampling Of institu- tions, inadequate students input data, or com- plete reliance on student responses to mailed follow-up questionnaires. Summary In summary it seems reasonable to conclude that: 1. Since research findings concerning the rela- tionship between academic achievement and remedial 1Ibid., p. 625. 2Alexander Astin, College Dropouts; A National Pro- file, Research Report, American Council on Education, VOl. 7, NO. 1, 1972, Washington, D.C. 27 programs were not entirely consistent, further research was appropriate. 2. There was a need for continuing re—examination of length Of enrollment, chosen fields Of study, tests Of academic ability, and academic performance Of the academ- ically disadvantaged student that serve as the basis for current policy on admission, instruction and counseling. 3. The failure on the part Of some colleges and universities to study the academically disadvantaged stu- dent has denied the administrative Officers and faculties valuable information in the area of serving constituent needs. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The purpose Of this investigation was to assess the remedial English program in terms Of later performance in English 1, subsequent academic achievement and other selected factors Of academically disadvantaged young adults at WCC who had participated in it. In this chap- ter the procedures employed in conducting that assessment are described. Population The student pOpulation was analyzed by freshman classes for each year of the study, 1961-1971, according to: 28 29 1. Scores on Placement Tests (Cooperative English and American College Test)l Students were identified upon entry into the fresh- man year as "academically disadvantaged" (see definitions, page 9) and "regular" (see definitions page 10). Of the 4,135 students who entered WCC during the 11 years under study, 1961-1971 inclusive, 559 were identified as academic- ally disadvantaged students. This classification was based solely upon scores made on placement tests. All whose scores on the Cooperative English Test (1961-1963) were below 48, and all whose scores on the English scale Of the American College Test (1964-1971) were below 16, were so identified. 2. Pattern of Remedial English or NO Remedial English to which Academically Disadvantaged Students Were Assigned Since it was the purpose Of the study to evaluate the relationship of remedial English to later academic C 1Scores on the Cooperative English Test, admini- stered during 1961, 1962 and 1963, were converted to equiv- alent American College Test (ACT) scores. The ACT was 30 performance, the 559 academically disadvantaged students were carefully screened to eliminate subjects whose special situations would systematically contaminate those relation- ships. Subjects who Carried less than twelve semester hours, those who were foreign students, those who completed less than one year of College, and those who had an "incom- plete" or "withdrawal" in English 1 were considered to be ineligible for assignment to a comparison group. This screening process reduced the academically disadvantaged population for the study to 315 students. The academically disadvantaged population was then divided into three comparison groups: Group I consisted of 120 academically disadvantaged students who enrolled in and completed one semester of Basic Grammar concurrently with the first semester of English 1 between the fall of 1961 and the spring of 1965. administered continuously beginning in 1964; and scores on the English scale Of that test, and the ACT equivalent of the Cooperative English Test scores for earlier years were used on all computations involving placement scores. (See Appendix B for chart used in conversion.) Thus all place- ment test scores were expressed as ACT scores. See Appendix D for data on individual subjects recorded by group assignment. 31 Their mean English standard ACT score was 12.65. These students enrolled in both Basic Grammar and English 1 as freshmen. Group II consisted Of 133 academically disadvan- taged students who enrolled in and completed two semesters (one academic year) of Basic Grammar prior to enrollment in English 1 between the fall of 1965 and the spring Of 1970. Their mean English standard ACT score was 12.81. These students enrolled in Basic Grammar as freshmen and in English 1 as sophomores. Group III consisted of 62 academically disadvan- taged students who enrolled in English 1 without Basic Grammar having been taken either prior to or concurrent with that enrollment between the fall Of 1970 and the spring of 1972. Their mean English standard score was 12.87. These students enrolled in English 1 as freshmen. 3. Grades Received in English 1 Two populations were used in this part of the 0 study. : 32 First, a sample Of 20% was drawn from the total eligible freshman population between 1961-1971. The sample which consisted Of 823 subjects was selected randomly by throwing a die and beginning with the number that appeared on the die, every fifth name was then chosen from the fresh- man class rosters. The rosters contained only first-time— in-college freshmen for each year of the study. If for some reason the fifth name did not fit the sample (those who carried less than twelve semester hours, those who were foreign students, those who completed less than one year of college, and those who had an."incomplete" or "withdrawal" in English 1), the name below it was selected. If that name did not fit the sample, the name below it was used. This happened seven times. The second population consisted of the 315 academ— ically disadvantaged students who were assigned to the com- parison groups (Group I, Group II, and Group III). 33 4. Grades Received in Six Selected Courses which Were Generally Taken by Most Students at WCC Two populations for,this factor were assembled. First, the pOpulation Of academically disadvantaged stu- dents (subdivided into Group I, Group II and Group III). Second, all students (both regular and academically disad- vantaged) who had enrolled in each of the selected courses, also subdivided according to time periods. The time periods were identical to those which differentiated Group I, Group II, and Group III (Fall 1962-Spring 1966, Fall 1966-Spring 1970 and Fall 1970-Spring 1972). 5. Major Field Of Study in which Students Finally Graduated; Years Required for Graduation and Grade Point Average at Graduation First, all academically disadvantaged students from Group I and Group II who later graduated with associate and baccalaureate degrees were regrouped by field Of study. Second, all associate and baccalaureate degree graduates Of the freshman classes from 1961-1968 (eight years), 34 excluSive Of graduates who had been classified in Group I and Group II as academiCally disadvantaged, were similarly regrouped by field of study. Group III Of the academically disadvantaged stu- dents was eliminated from this part Of the study, as were all regular college students who entered as freshmen in 1969 or later, because insufficient time had elapsed that would have allowed them to graduate. In the same manner academically disadvantaged stu- dents from Groups I and II were regrouped according to years required to graduate; and they were again grouped according to overall grade point average of each. 6. Years Each Student Was Retained (Continued as A Matriculated Student) at WCC There were two populations associated with this variable. The first included all academically disadvan- taged students: Group I, Group II, and Group III. The second included all regular college students who enrolled at WCC, exclusive of the academically disadvantaged student. 35 Collection Of Data The collection Of the data for each year of the study, 1961-1972, was done according to: 1. Scores on Placement Tests From the Guidance and Testing Office, a list con- taining the placement test scores for each freshman for each year of the study was procured. The 559 academically disadvantaged students, from which the comparison groups of 315 students were eligible, were identified from this source, as were the regular college students. 2. Pattern of Remedial English or NO Remedial English to Which Academically Disadvanteged Students Were Assigned After identifying the academically disadvantaged by using information gained from Scores on Placement Tests, as described above, transcripts from the Office of Admissions .and Records were checked, further identifying those 1961-64 freshmen who enrolled simultaneously in Basic Grammar and English 1. They were then classified in Group I. Those 36 academically disadvantaged students who enrolled in Basic Grammar as freshmen and in English 1 as sophomores in 1965 through 1969 were classified in Group II. Those freshmen who entered in 1970 and later and were identified as aca- demically disadvantaged were classified in Group III. This last group did not participate in Basic Grammar. Also, neither members of this group nor their regular student classmates were included in computations involving graduation, because of recency Of their admission to WCC. 3. Grades Received in English 1 These grades, for all students included in the study were taken from the students' transcripts in the Office of Admissions and Records. 4. Grades Received in Courses Which Are Generally Taken By Most Students at WCC First, by reference to enrollment data for required and frequently elected courses, the six most generally taken courses in the college were identified. They were: American History, Survey Of Civilization, Teaching of 37 Jesus, Foundations of ApOstolic Movement, English Litera- ture, and Speech. Second, a study of the permanent records of the three groups Of academically disadvantaged students yielded the grades in each of the six selected courses of those academically disadvantaged students who took those courses. Third, from copies of class rolls and grade re- port sheets from the Office of Admissions and Records, a mean GPA was calculated for each class of the six selected courses. The means were recorded corresponding to the time periods when the comparison groups enrolled in each of the courses (Fall 1962-Spring 1966, Fall l966-Spring 1970, and Fall 1970-Spring 1972). 5. Major Field of Study in Which Students Finally Graduated, Years Required for Graduation, and Grade Point Averege at Graduation First, the Office of Records and Admissions sup- plied a complete list of graduates for each year from 1962 through 1972. The graduation list provided the name of each graduate, the major field of study, the degree awarded (associate or baccalaureate) and the cumulative GPA of each 38 graduate. Second, the transcripts of the academically dis- advantaged students of Group I and Group II provided dates Of admission and years of attendance. Group III was not included because insufficient time had elapsed that would have allowed them to graduate. 6. Years Each Student Was Retained (Continued as A Matriculated Student) at WCC Retention rates were determined for both academic- ally disadvantaged and regular college students by compar- ing the entering class roster for the fall semester of each year of the study with the WCC student roster for each suc- ceeding year and calculating the number Of years between entry and exit (by withdrawal, transfer or graduation) for each student. Group III was not included because insufficient time had elapsed that would have allowed them to return for the third and fourth year to compare with other groups. 39 Data Analysis The data that were collected for each academically disadvantaged student were keypunched into data cards. Each card was assigned a code number which would enable the identification Of a particular student if necessary (see Appendix D). The computer at WCC's Computer Center was used for analysis Of Group I, Group II and Group III of the academically disadvantaged students. The data that were collected for the regular col- lege students were aggregated in terms of mean scores, grades, fields Of study, and grade point averages and placed in tables for analysis. As a first step in analysis, a decision was made to run two preliminary data analyses. 1. To test the correlation between English ACT standard scores and grades earned in English 1. The sample used in this test Of correlation consisted of the 823 sub- jects selected randomly from the freshman population Of 1961-1971. A Pearson product-moment correlation coeffi- cient was calculated to measure the relationship. An r value of .51 was Obtained. This implied that there was a 40 positive, but weak relationship between English ACT stan- dard scores and grade earned in English 1. From this low level of correlation we would infer that a sizeable number of students with low English ACT standard scores earned high grades and many with high English ACT standard scores received low grades in English 1. 2. TO determine if the three groups Of academic- ally disadvantaged students represented the same pOpula- tion. The mean English ACT standard scores Of the three groups all come from a reasonably homogeneous pOpulation of academically disadvantaged students. However, in order to be certain, a t-Test was conducted to determine whether mean difference between the three groups were due to chance or to differences in ability. The t-scores between Group I and Group II, Group II and Group III, and Group I and Group III were .21, .19, and .31 respectively. The critical t- value for a two—tailed test at the five percent point1 with greater than 120 degrees of freedom was read from a table 1The level (or point) of confidence utilized in statistical computations throughout was five percent. of t-values.1 41 As eXpected in a case where subjects were assigned on the basis of a uniform cutting score on equiva- lent tests, the three groups were regarded as representing the same population. The questions that formed the basis for the study were posed in followed by a the questions the data, the were answered the answering of data, null Chapter I and are restated here. Each is statement Of how the data were analyzed. If were best answered by simple inspection of data were placed in tables and the questions by reference to that material. However, if of questions required statistical treatment hypotheses were established. 1. What percentage Of enteringyfreshmen each year, 1961- 1971, were designated as academically disadvantaged because they received a standard score of 15 or below on the English section of the ACT 1964-1971 or the equivalent score Of 47 or below on the Cooperative English Test 1961-1963? 1Henry E. Garrett and R. S. Woodworth, Statistics in Psychology Green and CO., and Education (New York, N.Y.: Longmans, 1961), p. 449. 42 The numbers Of freshmen and of academically disad- vantaged students for each year were recorded in a fre- quency distribution table and the proportion of freshmen represented by academically disadvantaged in each case was computed and expressed as a percentage. 2. What was the correlation between English ACT standard scores for students entering as freshmen each year from 1961-1971 and grades earned by the same students in English 1? The sample used in this test Of correlation con- sisted of the 823 subjects selected randomly from the freshman population of 1961-1971. Means for ACT English scores and English 1 grades were calculated for each year. Then the distribution Of standard ACT scores was developed and the same was done for mean English 1 grades. A Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated to measure the relationship between the ACT English standard scores prior to enrollment and the English 1 grades later received by all classes of students for the total period. 43 3. Did academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment receive higher or lower grades in English 1 than those academically disadvan- taged students who received no remedial English treat- -_po- ment? If the answer was Tyes" (either higher or lower), which of the two remedial groups received higher or lower grades? To simultaneously answer the two questions, four null hypotheses were formulated: Null Hypothesis 1: There was no significant dif- ference in the mean English 1 GPA between academically dis- advantaged students who received remedial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and academically disadvantaged stu- dents who received no remedial English treatment (Group III). NuZZ Hypothesis 2: There was no significant dif- ference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group II. 44 Null Hypothesis 3: There was no significant dif- ference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group III. Null Hypothesis 4: There was no significant dif- ference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group II and Group III. The mean GPA and standard deviation for each group was obtained and a t-test was used to measure the differ- ence in distribution Of GPA's in each case. 4. Was the GPA of the academically disadVantaged students higher or lower in each of the six selected courses (American History, Survey of Civilization, Teachings of Jesus, Foundations of the Apostolic Movement, Eng- lish Literature and Speech) than the over-all GPA of all students who took those courses? The mean GPA for college students enrolled in each selected course was recorded in a frequency table by time periods identical to those which differentiated academic- ally disadvantaged student comparison Groups I, II, and III (Fall 1962-Spring 1966, Fall l966-Spring 1970, and Fall 45 1970-Spring 1972). The mean GPA for each selected course in which academically disadvantaged students enrolled was computed and recorded by comparison groups, Group I, Group II, and Group III. These means were distributed in the same table as the mean GPA for all College students who enrolled in those courses. 5. Did academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment have higher or lower grades in each Of the selected courses (American Historyy_Sur- yey of Civilization, Teachings of Jesus, Foundations of Apostolic Movement, English Literature and Speech) than those academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment? If the answer was Ayes" (either higher or lower), which of the two remedial groups received higher or lower grades? To simultaneously answer the two questions, four null hypotheses were formulated: Null Hypothesis 5: There was no significant dif- ference in each of the selected courses, between mean GPA's of academically disadvantaged students who received 46 remedial English treatment (Group I and Group III and mean GPA's Of academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment (Group Null Hypothesis 6: There was ence in mean GPA between Group I and the selected courses. Null Hypothesis 7: There was ence in mean GPA between Group I and the selected courses. Null Hypothesis 8: There was ence in mean GPA between Group [land the selected courses. III). no significant differ- Group II in each of no significant differ- Group III in each Of no significant differ- Group III in each of The same frequency table was used here for the aca- demically disadvantaged students that was constructed to answer Question 5. The mean GPA and standard deviation for each group was Obtained and a t-Test was used to measure the differ- ence in distribution of GPA's in each case. 47 Did academically disadvantaged students eventually graduate from WCC? If so, in what proportions? How long did it take for an academically disadvantaged student to graduate? The numbers of academically disadvantaged students from the freshman classes of 1961-1968 who graduated were recorded in two frequency distribution tables, one for stu- dents earning baccalaureate degrees and one for students earning associate degrees, according to the number of years it took to graduate. The proportions Of academically dis- advantaged students who eventually graduated were expressed in percentages. 7. In what disciplines did the academically disadvantaged students earn degrees? What were the differenceey if anyy between the proportions Of academically disadvan- taged who ggaduated and the proportions of regular col- lege students who graduated in identical disciplines in which degrees were earned? The answer tO the first portion of the question was found by simple inspection of a table. 48 A11 academically disadvantaged students from Group I and Group II who graduated with associate and baccalau- reate degrees were grouped by field of study, frequency Of graduates and cumulative GPA for each field. In the same frequency distribution table all associate and baccalau- reate degree graduates of the freshman classes from 1961- 1968, exclusive Of graduates who had been classified in Group I and Group II, were similarly grouped by field of study, frequency of graduates, and cumulative GPA for each field. TO answer the second half of the question a null hypothesis was formulated: Null Hypothesis 9: There was no significant dif—~ ference between the percentages of degrees received by academically disadvantaged students and by regular college students in identical fields of study at WCC. The percentages and standard deviations for each field of study were obtained and a t-Test was used to mea- sure the difference in the proportions of graduates in each case. 49 8. What are the differences, if any! between the two re- medial English treatment groups Of academically disad- vantaged students, Group I and Group II in terms of GPA, and proportions who received degrees in identical disciplines ChOSGD?‘ TO answer the question a null hypothesis was formu- lated. .Null Hypothesis 10: There was no significant diff ference between GPA and the percentage of degrees received in identical fields Of study for Group I and Group II. All academically disadvantaged students from Group I who graduated with associate or baccalaureate degrees were grouped by degree received, field Of study, frequency of graduates and cumulative GPA for graduates in each field. In the same table Of frequency distribution, all academic- ally disadvantaged from Group II who graduated from WCC were similarly grouped. .-The percentages and standard deviations for each field of study were Obtained and a t-Test was used to mea- sure LAG differences in GPA and proportions Of graduates in each'case. 50 9. What was the differenceL if any, between the total com- bined cumulative GPA in all fields of study between Group I and Group III? To answer the question a null hypothesis was formu- lated. Null Hypothesis 11: There was no significant dif- ference between the combined cumulative GPA in all fields for Group I and Group II. The same frequency distribution was used that was constructed for Question 8. The combined cumulative GPA and standard deviation for each group was Obtained and a t-Test was used to mea- sure the difference in distribution of GPA'S between Group I and Group II. 10. Did retention in college Of the academically disadvan- taged student who received remedial English treatment (GroupyI and Group II) differ from that Of the student body as a whole (excludingyall academically disadvan- taged students in Group I, Group II and Group III)? 51 A null hypothesis was formulated to answer the question. Null Hypothesis 12: There was no significant dif- ference between the percentage Of retention in college of academically disadvantaged students and that Of regular college students. A frequency distribution was constructed for aca- demically disadvantaged students who had remedial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and who re-enrolled two, threefand four years after matriculation. The frequency table also included all college students (excluding academ- ically disadvantaged studentS'in Group I, Group II, and Group III) who re-enrolled two, three, and fOUr years after matriculation. The percentages and standard deviations for each year's retention rate were Obtained. A t-Test was used to measure the difference in the proportions of retention for each year between the groups. 52 11. Did retention in college differ between English treat- ment groups or between either or both groups and those academically disadvantaged students who received no treatment? If the answer was fyes" (longer or shorter), which group of students remained in college: for a longer or shorter periOd of time? TO simultaneously answer the two questions four null hypotheses were formulated. Null Hypothesis 13: There was no significant dif- ference between the percentage Of retention into the Second year1 of college of academically disadvantaged students who ~received remedial treatment (Group I and Group II) and that of academically disadvantaged students who received no re- Q medial English treatment (Group III). Null Hypothesis 14: There was no significant dif- ference between the percentage of retention in college of Group I and that of Group II. __T_ 1The hypothesis was limited to the second year in college because the academically disadvantaged students placed in Group III had not been in attendance at WCC long enough to be included in an extended study. 53 Null Hypothesis 15:' There was no significant dif— ference between the percentage Of retention into the second year of college of Group I and that of Group III. Null Hypothesis 16: There was no significant dif- ference between the percentage of retention into the second year of college Of Group II and that Of Group III. A frequency distribution was constructed for Group I and Group II of academically disadvantaged students who re-enrolled two, three, and four years after matriculation. Group III's distribution was recorded for the second year after matriculation. A t-Test was used to measure the difference in the proportions of retention for each year between the groups. 12. Did first semester composite GPA's differ between those academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and the academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment? Were the differences in length Of stay in college within each group of the academically disadvantaged correlated positively or 54 negatively with difference in first semester com- ppsite GPA? Four null hypotheses were formulated to answer the first portion Of the question. Null Hypothesis 17: There was no significant dif- ference between the first semester cumulative GPA according to two, three, or four years' retention in college among various groups of academically disadvantaged students. Null Hypothesis 18: There was no significant cor- relation between the first semester cumulative GPA and) length Of stay in college for academically disadVantaged students Of Group I and Group II. Null Hypothesis 19: There was no significant cor- relation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length Of stay in college for academically disadvantaged students Of Group I. Null Hypothesis 20: There was no significant cor- relation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academically disadvantaged students of Group II. 55 A frequency table was constructed recording the GPA according to two, three, and four years' retention in col- lege for each group of academically disadvantaged students. The statistical test used to measure significant difference in null hypothesis seventeen was a t-Test. A Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated to measure relationships between first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college in null hypotheses eigh- teen, nineteen, and twenty. Summary In summary, Chapter III has contained the descrip- tion of the population, statements as to how the data were gathered, and two preliminary data analyses. The ques- tions from Chapter I were restated, null hypotheses were formulated, and statements relative to statistical tests used were given. The results of this study are reported in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The research was undertaken to assess the remedial English program in terms of later performance in English 1, subsequent academic achievement and other selected factors of the academically disadvantaged young adult at WCC. The results Of the data analyses of Chapter III are discussed within this chapter. Question 1. What percentage of entering freshmen each year 1961-71, was designated as academically disad- vantaged because they received a standard score of 15 or below on the English section of the ACT, 1961-1971, or the eguivalent score Of 47 or below on the Cooperative English Test, 1961- 1963? 1‘ Three facts in particular merited notice in the Ob- servation of the data in Table 1. The first fact was that 13.5 percent of the total freshman population of WCC during the eleven-year study was defined as academiCally disadvan- taged. This isIVery Similar to that of Helen~Garron's find- ings at University of Minnesota at Duluth where 13 percent 56 57 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN FRESHMAN CLASSES BY YEARS AT WCC (1961-71) Freshman Percentage gig? Mean Year ADS Class of ACT Eng. I Size ADS Score GPA 1961 36 330 10.9 18.64 2.17 1962 23 231 10.0 16.86 2.22 1963 21 310 6.8 21.35 2.40 1964 74 339 21.8 16.81 1.80 1965 86 446 19.3 19.67 2.23 1966 53 342 15.5 19.53 2.17 1967 44 407 10.8 20.28 2.26 1968 39 406 9.6 19.42 2.14 1969 50 426 11.8 20.63 2.36 1970 50 435 11.5 19.47 2.21 1971 83 463 17.9 19.21 2.39 Total 559 4135 13.5 2.23 19.32 58 of entering freshmen were plaCed in remedial English. (See page 18.) The second fact was that the freshman class of 1963 had the smallest percentage Of academically disadvan- taged students (6.8%), the highest ACT English score (21.35) and the highest GPA in English 1 (2.40) of the eleven classes. And third, the freshman class of 1964 had the highest percentage Of academically disadvantaged students (21.8%), the lowest ACT English standing score (16.81) and the lowest GPA in English 1 (1.80) of the eleven classes. Question 2. What was the Correlation between English ACT standard score for enteringyfreshmen each year from 1961-1971 and grades earned in English 1? The students who did well on the ACT appeared to perform better in English 1 than those with the low ACT scores. An r value Of .51 was Obtained. This implied that (there was a positive but weak relationship between ACT Eng- lish standard scores and grades earned in English 1. This positive correlation between ACT English standard scores and English 1 grades can be seen in the data in Table 2. The tendency of the freshman English 1 students was to have a reasonably normal grade distribution with a considerable skew in the C-B grade range. 59 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF ACT ENGLISH STANDARD SCORES AND ENGLISH I GRADES FOR ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS AT WCC (1961-1971) Average Eng. ACT Standard 24.31 22.19 18.49 15.90 13.36 Score Number English 1 45 261 404 69 44 Grades Percent , of English 1 5.5 31.6 49.1 8.3 5.5 Grades Sample N = 823 Average English ACT Standard Score = 19.32 English 1 GPA = 2.23 It appears that the English department perhaps should not have used the ACT English standard scores as the single basis for assigning academically disadvantaged stu- dents tO Basic Grammar. There is no evidence that they took high school English grades into consideration. As noted in the Review of Literaturema statement by Bossone implies that use of high school grades in conjunction with ACT Englishsfizn- dard scores may have been a better predictor of success in 60 college English than the standard score on the English ACT alone. NuZZ Hypothesis 1: There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between academ- ically disadvantaged students who re- ceived remedial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment (Group III). From the results of the t-Test (Table 3) it appeared that Basic Grammar did not improve the performance of the academically disadvantaged student in English 1 according to grade earned in that class. A t score of 3.12 was ob- tained for these two groups. The critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with 313 degrees of freedom was 1.97. Since the value of 3.12 was more than 1.97,.the null hypothesis was rejected at the five percent point. There was a significant difference in the mean Eng— lish 1 GPA between the remedial English students and those that received no remedial treatment. An unexpected finding was that academically disadvantaged students with no reme- dial English performed at a significantly higher level than did the academically disadvantaged with remedial English in English 1. 61 TABLE 3 COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH I OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP I & II AND NONREMEDIATION GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) ‘_ Fre- English Degrees t Critical Group uency GPA Of Score t q Freedom Remedial English 253 1.72 313 3.12* 1.97 No Remedial 62 2.00 English *Difference significant at fiVe percent point. Null Hypothesis 2: There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I- and Group II. The data in Table 4 indicate that a t score of 2.75 was obtained for these two groups. The critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with 251 degrees of freedom was 1.97. Since the t value of 2.75 was more than 1.97, the null hypothesis was rejected at the five percent point. There was a significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA for the remedial students between 62 Group I and Group II. It would seem to indicate that Group II was the better remedial program. However, it must be noted that Group II had an additional year of college that Group I had not had, which may imply that that assumption should not be made. The teaching of Basic Grammar prior to enrolling in English 1 did significantly raise the GPA in English 1. TABLE 4 COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH I OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP I AND REMEDIATION GROUP II AT WCC (1961-1971) Fre- English Degrees t Critical Group uency GPA Of Score t q Freedom Remediation 120 1.58 Group I. 251 2.75* 1.97 Remediation Group II 133 1.86 *Difference significant at five percent point 63 NuZZ Hypothesis 3: There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group III. Again, as in Null Hypothesis 1, Basic Grammar did not improve the performance of the academically disadvan- taged student in English 1 according to grade earned in that class. In fact it appears that the teaching of Basic Grammar concurrently with English 1 has a detrimental affect on English 1 GPA. In Table 5 a t score of 3.72 TABLE 5 COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN.ENGLISH I OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP I AND NONREMEDIATION GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) Fre- English Degrees t Critical Group uenc GPA Of Score t g Y Freedom Remediation 120 1.58 Group I 180 3.72* 1.97 Nonremediation Group III 62 2'00 *Difference significant at the five percent point. 64 was obtained for these two groups. The critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with 180 degrees of freedom was 1.97. Since the t value of 3.72 was greater than 1.97, the null hypothesis was rejected at the five percent point. There was a significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group III. NuZZ Hypothesis 4: There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group II and Group III. The fourth null hypothesis indicates that remedial English did not improve performance in English 1. A t score of 1.58 was obtained for these two groups, Table 6. The critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with 193 degrees of freedom was 1.97. Since the t value of 1.58 was less than 1.97, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. There was no significant difference in mean English 1 GPA between Group II and Group III. ' Academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment had lower grades in English 1 than the academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment. The academically disadvan- taged students with no remedial English performed at a 65 TABLE 6 COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA IN ENGLISH I OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN REMEDIATION GROUP II AND NONREMEDIATION GROUP III AT WCC (1961-1971) M m m Fre- English Degrees t Critical Group uenc GPA Of Score t q y Freedom Remediation Group II 133 1.86 193 1.58 1.97 Nonremediation Group III 62 2.00 significantly higher level than did the academically disad- vantaged with remedial treatment, yet, well below the 2.23 GPA (Table 2) in English 1 for the entire freshman classes, 1961-1971. The academically disadvantaged students who took English 1 concurrently with Basic Grammar had the lowest GPA in English 1 of the three academically disadvantaged groups. In fact it appearedto have had a detrimental affect on the students in earning a higher GPA in English 1. 66 Question number four deals with the performance of academically disadvantaged students and regular college Students in regular academic courses. Question 4. ‘Was.the GPA of the academically disadvantaged students higher or lower in each of the six selected courses (American History, Survey of Civilization! Teaching of Jesus, Foundations of Apostolic Movement, English Literature and Speech) than the over-all GPA of all students who took those courses? It is apparent that the academically disadvantaged students earned lower grades in.a11 six selected courses than the average for all college students who took these courses. As seen in Table 7, the largest difference in GIPA between the academically disadvantaged students and 'those that took the six selected courses was in English Literature followed by American History and Speech. It must be noted that the difference would be more marked, of course, if the overall GPA in the six selected courses were to exclude the academically disadvantaged students which it does not. See Table 4. 67 TABLE 7 COMPARISON BETWEEN GPA OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS IN SIX SELECTED COURSES AT WCC (1962-1972) Amer- Surve Teach- Found. En ican y ings of the .g , of , lish Speech His- , . of Apostolic , CiVil. Lit. tory Jesus Movement Academically Disadvantaged Students Remediatl°n 1.85 2.31 2.00 2.39 1.83 2.22 Group I R . emedlati°n 1.89 2.14 2.11 2.26 1.97 2.28 Group II N 'A i onnemedlat on 1.96 2.00 2.00 2.04 2.00 1.93 Group III 1.89 2.15 2.01 2.29 1.89 2.19 All college Students (Fall 62-Spring 70) 2.35 2.28 2.24 2.51 2.39 2.37 (Fall 66-Spring 70) 2.37 2.29 2.78 2.47 2.43 2.59 (Fall 70-Spring 72) 2.29 2.23 2.27 2.42 2.43 2.69 2.34 2.25 2.48 2.46 2.42 2.58 68 The previous questions dealt with the academically disadvantaged student and the regular college student in six selected courses. The next four hypotheses pertain to the various remediated and nonremediated academically dis- advantaged students in six selected courses. cerning the numbers of students, academically disadvantaged students in each of the six selected courses are on display in Table 8. GRADE POINT AVERAGES BY GROUPS OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN SIX SELECTED COURSES AT WCC (1962-1972) TABLE 8 The data con— 1eve1 of performance of . Non- Remediated 'Remediated Remediated Remediated Subject Group Group I Group II Group III I F* II M* F M F M F M American History 94 1.87 40 1.85 54 1.89 25 1.96 Survey of , , . 85. 2.21 36 2.31 49 2.14 9 2.00 CiVilization Teachings of Jesus 170 2.06 82 2.00 88 2.11 21 2.00 F i f °undat °ns ° 109 2.31 38 2.39 71 2.26 24 2.04 Apostolic Movement English Literature 64 1.90 30 1.83 34 1.97 7 2.00 Speech 91 2.24 41 2.22 50 2.28 15 1.93 *F a Frequency, the number of subjects in group that took that particular course . *M = Mean GPA. 69 Null Hypothesis 5: There was no significant difference be- tween the GPA earned by academically disadvantaged students who received re- medial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and those earned by academic- ally disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment (Group III) in each of the six selected courses. All of the t scores (Table 9) of the academically disadvantaged students for the six selected courses were below the critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with their respective degrees of freedom. Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant difference be- tween mean GPA of academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment and the mean GPA of academically disadvantaged students who received no reme- dial English treatment cannot be rejected in any of the selected courses. Those academically disadvantaged students provided with remedial English performed no better overall than their counterparts with no remediation in GPA in the six selected courses. Null Hypothesis 6: There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group I and Group II in each of the selected courses. 70 09Hm> u HMUHHHHU II {J U ”HOUW U. n U. Eopmmum Ho mmmummo u up Ho.m ov.H 8m Ho.m 8m.H mo mm.H mm. mm mm.H mn.H MOH nommdm . . . . . . . . musumumofiq mo N om mm mo m HH mm 00 m Es No 00 N mm mm anHme oo.N m©.H. ow mm.H mH.H mm mm.H on. BOH mm.H mv.H OMH ucmfio>oz OHHoumoma Ho mcoHumpcsom . . . . . . . momma m0 mm H o HOH mm H mv 50H mm H No wOH hm H: no mmH @cHnommB . . . . . . . . COHuMNHHH>HU No N mo H mv Ho N Hm mm mm H mm mm mm H 5% Ho m0 >m>Hdm . . . . . . . . HuoumHm Ho N vv mo 00 N om up mm H om mm mm H mm wHH cooHumE¢ u u u u U u MU U u MG 0 u MC 0 u «MU onusou HHH coHumemEmucoz HHH GOHuMHmechoz HH coHuMHmemm HHH coHumH©050Hcoz can can can can H coHuMHomEmm HH COHumHomEmm H coHumHomeom HH a H coHUMHomEmm AmhmHumoch 0oz an mezmooem omoaezm>oamHo wqqaonmoaoa m0& mmmmDOU omeumdmm me ZH 4&0 meZBmm mmDHd> u HdOHBHmU 02¢ mmmOUm u m mamda 71 As seen in Table 9 the t scores of the academically disadvantaged students for all six selected courses were below the critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with their respective degrees of freedom. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no significant differ- ence in each of the selected courses, between mean GPA of Group I and mean GPA of Group II cannot be rejected in any of the selected courses. There was no indication that either program of remedial English improved performance in the six selected courses of the academically disadvantaged student more than the other. Null Hypothesis 7: There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group I and Group III in each of the selected courses. All of the t scores found in Table 9 for this pair- ing of groups of academically disadvantaged students were below the critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with their respective degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis of no significant difference in each of the selected courses, between mean GPA of Group I and mean GPA of Group III cannot be rejected. 72 Null Hypothesis 8: There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group II and Group III in each of the selected courses. Again, as in hypotheses five, six and seven, all of the t scores displayed in Table 9 of the academically dis- advantaged students for all six selected courses were below the critical t value for a two-tailed test at the five per- cent point with their respective degrees of freedom. Hence,.. the null hypothesis of no significant difference in each of the selected courses, between mean GPA of Group II and mean GPA of Group III cannot be rejected. The data obtained provided the opportunity to com- pare differences in performance in regular academic courses between academically disadvantaged students who had reme- dial English and those academically disadvantaged students who did not have remedial English. It appeared that aca- demically disadvantaged students without remediation were as successful in regular academic courses as were those who received remedial treatment. The major implication of such success without remediation was that the regulations requir- ing groups of academically disadvantaged students to spend one or more terms in remedial work cannot be justified, at 73 least by these data, for in fact, those who had participated in no remedial English enrolled in and passed regular col- lege level classes. Thus, those academically disadvantaged students provided with the purported benefits of remedial ‘work performed no better over-all than did their counter- parts-with no remediation in GPA in the six selected courses. The discussion of Question Six relates to information concerning graduation of the academically disadvantaged stu- dent in baccalaureate or associate degree programs. Question 6. .Did academically disadvantaged students even- tually graduate from WCC? If so, in what proportions? How long did it take for an academically disadvantaged student to graduate? Ninety-one of a total of 376 academically disadvan- taged students, as seen in Tables 10 and 11, were eventually graduated from WCC, 75 with baccalaureate degrees and 16 with associate degrees. Thus, nearly 25% of academically disadvantaged students who enrolled at WCC from 1961-1968 earned degrees. Prior to 1965, 64% of the baccalaureate degrees earned by these academically disadvantaged students were awarded after five or more years of study. Since that time 74 most of these graduates have completed their programs in four years. See Table 10. TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS RECEIVING BACCALAUREATE DEGREES BY FRESHMAN CLASSES AT WCC (1961-1971) u—t . I . _ ADS AWARDED DEGREES IN Percent Year ADS 4 5 6 Total Receiving Years Years Years Degrees 1961 36 2 7 2 11 27.80 1962 23 3 2 3 8 34.78 1963 21 3 1 1 5 23.81 1964 74 5 6 1 12 16.22 1965 86 12 5 0 17 19.77 1966 53 9 3 1 13 24.53 1967 44 5 0 l 6 13.64 1968 39 3 0 0 3 7.69 Totals 376’ —42 1—24 I——9 -75 100% ADS who were graduated with baccalaureate degrees from WCC = 75. The percentage of ADS enrolled as freshmen who eventually were graduated with baccalaureate degrees = 19.95%. 75 TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS RECEIVING ASSOCIATE DEGREES BY FRESHMAN CLASSES AT WCC (1961-1971) ADS AWARDED DEGREES IN Percent Year ADS 2 3 4 Total Receiving Years Years Years , Degrees 1961 36 0 1 0 1 2.78 1962 23 O 0 0 O 0.00 1963 21 0 0 l 1 4.76 1964 74 0 0 40 0 0.00 1965 86 1 1 0 2 2.33 1966 53 0 4 0 4 7.55 1967 44 4 2 0 6 13.64 1968 39 2 0 0 2 5.13 Mal. '37; "'7' “E "1' I; 100% Academically disadvantaged students who were graduated with degrees = 16. The percentage of academically disadvantaged freshmen who were graduated with associate degrees = 4.26%. Fourteen of the sixteen associate degree graduates enrolled as freshmen from 1965-1968. Over 50% required three or more years to finish their two-year programs (See Table 11). 76 The previous question dealt with the number of aca- demically disadvantaged students that graduated in bacca- laureate and associate degrees and with how long it took those graduates to complete their chosen programs. The next phase of the analyses pertains to the various fields chosen by the academically disadvantaged students. Question 7. In what disciplines did the academically dis— advantaged students earn degrees? Fourteen disciplines were represented among the seventy-five baccalaureate degrees granted to academically disadvantaged students from the freshman classes of 1961- 1968. Those disciplines can be found in Table 12. No academically disadvantaged students chose the fields of English, Spanish, German, Art, Chemistry, Physics, or Be- havioral Science. All three disciplines in which associate degrees were available were represented in the sixteen associate degrees granted to academically disadvantaged students from the freshman classes of 1961-1968. There were seven disciplines not chosen by the aca- demically disadvantaged students, but seventeen other dis- ciplines were. The following discussion considers those 77 TABLE 12 COMPARISON BETWEEN IDENTICAL DEGREES EARNED BY ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND REGULAR COLLEGE STUDENTS FOR FRESHMAN CLASS (1961-1968) fir +7 Ma'or ADS Percent Regular Percent of Fiild Who GPA ADS Who Grads GPA Students Graduate Graduate of SMC Who Graduate ol - The. ogy 16 2.33 21.3 181 2.70 17.8 Religion El m ntar e e , y 10 2.70 13.3 198 2.84 19.4 Education Nursing 10 2.49 13.3 180 2.91 17.7 Enginesé- 8 2.54 10.7 115 2.69 11.3 Accounting Industrial . 7 2.69 9.3 31 2.62 3.0 Education Communit . Y 5 2.52 6.7 6 2.38 .6 SerVice History 4 2.46 5.3 50 2.78 4.5 Communications 3 l 2.36 4.0 36 2.70 3.5 P ' l hySlC? 3 2.23 4.0 32 2.57 3.1 Education Music 3 2.38 4.0 22 3.06 2.2 Biology 2 2.92 2.7 76 2.74 7.5 Mathematics 2 3.05 2.7 23 2.99 2.3 Home Economics 1 2.40 1.3 47 2.84 4.6 Off' To? , 1 2.62 1.3 22 2.54 2.1 Administration -—’ —'——' r-——' ————- Totals 75 2.51 100% 1019 2.78 100% ADS Graduates = Regular College Graduates = 1019 Regular College Graduates GPA.==2.78 Regular College Graduates including Fields not represented in academr ically disadvantaged students choices = 1286 ADS Graduates Mean GPA = 2.51 78 seventeen fields and particularly the comparison of gradua- tion rates of academically disadvantaged students to that _of regular college students. Null Hypothesis 9: There was no significant difference be- tween the percentages of degrees re- ceived by academically disadvantaged students and by regular college students in identical fields of study at WCC. The t scores (Table 13) were all below the critical t value with the apprOpriate degrees of freedom at the five percent point for a two—tailed test except Industrial Educa- tion and Community Service with 3.35 and 5.16 t scores re- spectively. The critical t values with appropriate degrees of freedom are 2.03 and 2.26 respectively. Hence, the mul- tiple null hypothesis of no significant difference between the percentages of degrees received by academically disad— vantaged students and by regular college students in iden- tical fields of study at WCC cannot be rejected for fifteen of the fields but can be rejected for Industrial Education and Community Service. No explanation can be given as to why the academic- ally disadvantaged students failed to choose those seven fields previously mentioned. 79 TABLE 13 t SCORES AND CRITICAL t VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PERCENTAGE OF ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND REGULAR COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO GRADUATED IN IDENTICAL FIELDS AT WCC (BY FRESHMAN CLASSES 1961-68) Baccalaureate Degrees df* t-Score Criiical Theology-Religion 195 1.52 1.97 Elementary Education 196 .70 1.97 Nursing 188 .39 1.97 Business-Accounting 121 34 1.98 Industrial Education 36 3.35** 2.03 Community Service 9 5.16** 2.26 History 52 .52 2.02 Communications 37 .41 2.02 Physical Education 33 .58 2.03 Music 23 1.29 2.07 Biology 76 1.28 1.99 Mathematics 24 .47 2.06 Home Economics 46 1.13 2.02 Office Administration 21 29 2.08 Associate Degrees Nursing 146 .59 1.98 Office Administration 74 .47 2.00 Medical Records Technology 8 .39 2.31 *df = degrees of freedom **Difference significant at five percent point. 80 Two fields that were chosen by the academically disadvantaged students in greater proportions were Indus- trial Education and Community Service. The GPA's of aca- demically disadvantaged students were also higher than the regular college students in these fields. An implication is that students who may be weak verbally would seek fields where ability could be demonstrated in other ways such as manual skills. Community Service was drOpped as a major in 1965, hence this may account for the significant difference in this field. In twelve of the disciplines there were no great differences in GPA or in percentage of degrees granted be- tween the academically disadvantaged students and the regu- lar college students. There was no difference in GPA or in the percen- tage of degrees granted in the associate degree program between academically disadvantaged students and regular college students. 81 Null Hypothesis 10: There was no significant difference between the GPA and the percentage of degrees received in identical fields of study for Group I and Group II. The data concerning the numbers of students, fields of study and GPA in those fields for the two groups who re- ceived remediation are on display in Table 14. All the t scores in Table 15 were below the criti- cal t value for a two-tailed test at the five percent point with their respective degrees of freedom. Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant differences between the GPA and the percentage of degrees received in identical fields of study for the two groups forms of remediation for aca- demically disadvantaged students cannot be rejected. It appeared that because there were no significant differences in the percentage of degrees received by the two remediated groups of academically disadvantaged students there was no preference in choosing a field of study between those two groups. The no significant differences in cumula- tive GPA seems to indicate that one remedial program did not increase performance any more than the other in GPA at grad- uation in identical fields. 82 TABLE 14 COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO FORMS OF REMEDIATION FOR ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF SUCH STUDENTS WHO GRADUATE AND THE GPA THEY ACHIEVE IN IDENTICAL FIELDS OF STUDY AT WCC (BY FRESHMAN CLASSES 1961-68) Baccalaureate Group I Group II Degree Frequency GPA Percent Frequency GPA Percent Th lo - 6° ,9? 8 2.21 22.2 8 2.45 20.5 Religion E1 m tar e 8“ ,Y 4 2.80 11.1 6 2.63 15.4 Education Nursing 2 2.33 5.6 8 2.53 20.5 B ' - “Slness , 4 2 so 11.1 4 2 58 10 3 Accounting I d tr' 1 n “S I? 3 2.67 8.3 4 2.69 10.3 Education Commu it n, Y 5 2 52 13.9 * * * SerVice History 3 2.37 8.3 1 2.73 2.6 Communications ** ** ** 3 2.36 7.7 Ph ' a1 YSIC , 3 2 23 8.3 0 0 00 0.0 Education Music 2 2.40 5.6 1 2.34 2.6 Biology 1 2.86 2.8 1 2.98 2.6 Mathematics 1 3.10 2.8 1 3.05 2.6 Home Economics 0 0.00 0.0 1 2.40 2.6 ff‘ 0 1C? . . 0 0 00 0.0 1 2 02 2 6 Administration .__ ___ Total 36 2 45 100% 39 2.54 100% Associate Degree Nursing *** *** *** 9 2.33 24.0 ff“ 0 1C? . . 2 2 O6 100 4 2 54 28 6 Administration ' d Medical Recor S 0 0.00 0 1 2.64 7.1 Technology ___ ___ Total 2 2.06 100% 14 3.41 100% Graduates of Group I = 38 Graduates of Group II = 53 Graduates of Group I GPA = 2.45 Graduates of Group II GPA = 2.54 *Program dropped in 1963 **Program added in 1965 ***Program added in 1965 83 TABLE 15 t SCORES AND CRITICAL t VALUES FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GPA AND PERCENTAGE OF DEGREES EARNED IN IDENTICAL FIELDS FOR ACADEMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS GROUP I AND II (BY FRESHMAN CLASSES 1961-1968) Baccalaureate df* GPA Percentage Critical Degrees t Score t Score t value Theology-Religion 14 1.08 .09 2.14 Elementary Education 8 1.75 .21 2.31 Nursing 8 2.00 .70 2.31 Business-Accounting 6 .59 .21 2.45 Industrial Education 5 .31 .11 2.57 Community Service NC NC NC NC History 2 2.98 .45 4.30 Communications NC** NC NC NC Physical Education 1 0 .60 12.70 Music 1 O .09 12.70 Biology 1 O 09 12.70 Mathematics 1 O 11 12.70 Home Economics 1 O .12 12.70 Office Administration 1 O .12 12.70 Associate Degrees Nursing NC NC NC NC Office Administration 4 .91 2.50 2.77 Medical Records Technology NC NC NC NC *degrees of freedom NC = No basis for comparison because programs were either being added or dropped. 84 Null Hypothesis 11: There is no significant dif- ference between the cumulative GPA in identical fields of study of Group I and Group II. From Table 16 it was seen that the t-score of .56 was smaller than the critical t-value of 1.97 for a two- tailed test at the five percent point with 73 degrees of freedom. Hence, the null hypothesis of no significant difference beteen the cumulative GPA in identical fields of Group I and Group II cannot be rejected. It appears that neither program of remediation affected the cumulative GPA for either group. TABLE 16 COMPARISON BETWEEN CUMULATIVE GPA OF REMEDIATED GROUP I AND REMEDIATED GROUP II IN IDENTICAL DEGREES EARNED AT WCC (1961-1971) u-LGroup Number GPA df» F t Ct Remidiated 3 6 2 . 4 5 H 73 .51 1.97 Remediated 39 2.54 II df = degrees of freedom ._ Ln"m"" 5 = t-scores critical value 0 II 85 The focus of null hypothesis 12 is directed toward the retention rates of academically disadvantaged students and regular college students. Null Hypothesis 12: There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention in college of remediated academicallv disadvantaged students and that of regular college students. As seen in Table 17 the t score for the second year in college for the remediated academically disadvantaged students and the regular college students was 5.31. This was well above the critical t value of 1.96 for a two- tailed test at the five percent point. All other t scores are below the critical t point. Therefore, the null hy- pothesis of no significant differences between retention in college for the remediated academically disadvantaged students and regular college students was rejected for the second year but not for the third and fourth year. The implication appears to be that remedial educa- tion in English was associated with retention of the aca- demically disadvantaged student at WCC from freshman to SOphomore years in significant greater proportions than the retention rates of regular college students. However, 86 .maHm> u HMOHHHHUHDO ..ouoon on u .socmmum mo momumovnmo .mchusuwu msoum mo ucmoummu w .ucHom unmoumm 0>HH um ucmonHcmHm moconmmHQ as .mucmosum wmmmucm>pmme >HHmostpmom mcHUsHoxm s hm mm.H mm.H vaH om.H mm.H mmMH mm mv mm mm.H *aHm.m mth mv mm ucmcsum Commucm>pmmHo “HHmoHEoomod wouMHpmsmm mmm osmosom .vmmm oooHHou HmHsmmm no u u . on a no mo mummy v mummy m u up w #0 w whom» m Honssz macho HhmHlemH 003 B4 mBZmQDBm MOMHHOU mdqbwmm DZfi mBZMODBm QMOQ u HMOHuHuuuuU muoom on u .Eoommum Ho mmmummoumo .003 on cocusumu 0:3 msoum mo unmoummu w .ucHom ucmonmm m>HH um wocmumHmHo « HH msouo am .mv so MMH omuoaomsmm. mm.H so. so mm.H No. vHH mm.H 4mm.m «ma mm me no omH. H moose CODMvaEwm no 8 on s oo o no a so u no a nonssz osouo gov sum osm NfilemH DUB HG BZMQDBm Qm0¢92¢>odeQ NHH¢UH2ma u HMOHuHuquU 0H8m U." U aooooum mo umoumooumo . . HHH moose co N no H COHuanmswucoz mm.H oo. mmH hm.H om. mmH . . HH macaw mm H mm H CCDMHvosmm . . HHH macho co N mm H GCDMHuosoucoz mm.H Hm. hHH om.H mv.H omH H macho H .H .H m mm woumHvosmm mm.m mo.m mm.H om.H HH macaw U0DMHvoswm mm.H 05. mm mm.H hm.H mm. va om.H we. Hmm H mdouw mm.~ om.H Hm.H mm.H wouMHoosom u up u up u up m 90 How» fiv 4&0 #0 Q¢mHD NHHdUHZflQflUd m0 HB¢HDSDU mmfimmzmm BmMHm ZMW3BWQ ZOmHm¢m200 96 academically disadvantaged students in terms of length of stay at WCC. Null Hypothesis 183 There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academ- ically disadvantaged students of Group I and II. Null Hypothesis 19: There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academ- ically disadvantaged students of Group I. Null Hypothesis 20: There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academ- ically disadvantaged students of Group II. The students who had higher cumulative GPA's at the end of their first semester in college appeared to remain in college longer than those with lower GPA's (Table 20). An r value of .34 was obtained for all remediated students, an r value of .31 was obtained for remediated students of Group I and an r value of .37 was obtained for remediated students of Group II. This implied that there was a posi- tive but very weak relationship between first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college. A further implication was that students with high GPA's drop out I 97 about as frequently as those with low GPA's. Similarly those with low GPA's continue in college for four years in almost as many cases as do those with high GPA's. It would seem to indicate that prediction for dropouts would be better on the lower end of the grade scale but not on the higher side. Summary Most remedial programs attempt, either explicitly or implicitly, through improved skills in reading or writ- ing, to provide the student with a better chance to do well in college. However, on the basis of the data ex- pressed in Chapter IV, it appears that that assumption is not justified for the remedial English program at Western Christian College. The implication is that WCC has not achieved its goal of remediation of the academically disad- vantaged student. In Chapter V a summary, conclusions, recommenda- tions, and implications for further study are discussed. CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This chapter summarizes the findings of this study, presents conclusions from these findings and gives recom- mendations based on these conclusions. In general, this research was undertaken to assess the remedial English program in terms of later performance in English 1, subsequent academic achievement, and other selected factors of the academically disadvantaged young adult at WCC. The factors were: performance on placement tests, patterns of remediation, grades received in English 1, grades received in courses taken by most students at WCC, major fields of study in which students finally grad— uated, years students remained in college and composite first semester grade point average. Three populations were selected to study these fac- tors. The first consisted of 315 academically disadvantaged students. This population was further divided into three 98 99 groups. The groups were: Group I, academically disadvan- taged students who took Basic Grammar concurrently with English 1 as freshmen; Group II, academically disadvantaged students who took Basic Grammar prior to enrolling in Eng— lish l which they took as sophomores; and Group III, aca- demically disadvantaged students who enrolled in English 1 without Basic Grammar. The second consisted of 823 first- time-in-college freshmen from the classes of 1961-71. These students were Chosen randomly from the total of all freshmen, regular and academically disadvantaged. The third consisted of only regular college students (excluding the academically disadvantaged). Five questions were posed and.twenty hypotheses were tested in this study. Qpestions 1. What percentage of entering freshmen each year, 1961-71 were designated as academically disadvan- taged because they received a standard score of 15 or below on the English section of the ACT? 100 2. What was the correlation between English ACT stan- (dard score for entering freshmen each year from 1961-71 and grades earned in English 1? 3. Did regular college students receive higher grades in each of the six selected courses (American His- tory, Survey of Civilization, Teachings of Jesus, Foundations of the Apostolic Movement, English Lit- erature and Speech) than did the academically dis- advantaged students? 4. Did academically disadvantaged students eventually graduate from WCC? If so, in what proportions?, How long did it take for academically disadvantaged students to graduate? 5. In what disciplines did the academically disadvan- taged students earn degrees? Null Hypotheses 1. There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between the academically disadvan- taged students who received remedial English 101 treatment (Group I and Group II) and academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treatment (Group III). There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group II. There was no significant difference in the mean English 1 GPA between Group I and Group III. There was no significant difference in the mean English I GPA between Group II and Group III. There was no significant difference between the GPA earned by academically disadvantaged students who received remedial English treatment (Group I and Group II) and those earned by academically disad- vantaged students who received no remedial English treatment (Group III), in each of six selected courses . There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group I and Group II in each of the selec- ted courses. 10. ll. 12. 102 There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group I and Group III in each of the selected courses. There was no significant difference in mean GPA between Group II and Group III in each of the selected courses. There was no significant difference between the percentage of degrees received by academically disadvantaged students and by regular college students in identical fields of study at WCC. There was no significant difference between the GPA and the percentages of degrees received by identi- cal fields of study for Group I and Group II. There are no significant differences between the cumulative GPA in identical fields of study of Group I and Group II. There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention in college of remediated academically disadvantaged students and that of regular college students. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 103 There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention into the second year of college of academically disadvantaged students who received remedial treatment (Group I and Group II) and that of academically disadvantaged students who received no remedial English treat- ment (Group III). There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention in College of Group Iv and Group II. There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention into the second year of college of Group I and Group III There was no significant difference between the percentage of retention into the second year of college of Group II and Group III. There was no significant difference between the first semester cumulative GPA according to two, three or four years retention in college among various groups of academically disadvantaged students. 18. 19. 20. 104 There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in, college for academically disadvantaged students of Group I and Group II. .There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academically disadvantaged students of Group I. There was no correlation between the first semester cumulative GPA and length of stay in college for academically disadvantaged students of Group II. The results of testing these null hypotheses are found in the next section under Conclusions. Conclusions The principal conclusions from the study were: Neither of the two patterns of Basic Grammar produces significant improvement in English 1 as measured by GPA. 105 Neither of the two patterns of Basic Grammar im- proves the academically disadvantaged students' academic performance in any of the six selected subject areas of later study as measured by GPA. Academically disadvantaged students who completed Basic Grammar prior to entering English 1 contin- ued in college for the second year in larger pro- portions than did any of the other groups (regular or academically disadvantaged). Thereafter there was no significant difference in retention rate between those who received remedial English treat- ment and regular college students, between either of the remedial groups, or between those academic- ally disadvantaged students who did not have reme- dial English and those who did. The cumulative GPA of the regular college students were higher upon graduation than that of the aca- demically disadvantaged students. The academically disadvantaged students comprised 13.5% of the total freshman population during the eleven-year study. 106 The academically disadvantaged students did choose different courses of study than the regular college students. Seven disciplines were excluded from their Choices of fields of study. No academically disadvantaged students chose the fields of English, Spanish, German, Art, Chemistry, Physics, and Be- havioral Science. A significantly greater propor- tion of academically disadvantaged students than of regular college students, graduated in Indus- trial Education, and they seemed to earn a moder- ately higher GPA than did the regular college stu- dent. In twelve of the disciplines there were no significant differences in percentage of degrees granted between the academically disadvantaged students and regular college students, nor were there significant differences in GPA. Low composite GPA at the end of the first grading period at WCC of the academically disadvantaged students were predictive of drOpouts. 107 Recommendations On the basis of the findings and conclusions, it .was recommended: 1. That the moratorium placed on the requirement that academically disadvantaged students enroll in the patterns of Basic Grammar previously employed be continued. 2. That administrators of the Office of Admissions and Records at WCC develop more precise means for identification of academically disadvantaged stu- dents. 3. That administrators of the Office of Admissions and Records establish procedures for collecting and35 storing information concerning attrition to provide data for future research of the "drOpout" problem. 4. The Counseling Center should encourage and coordin- ate special programs for academically disadvantaged students. These special programs should be of the type of individual consultation and remediation as opposed to formal courses. The Admissions Office 108 should notify the Center when an academically dis- advantaged student has enrolled at WCC. Upon re- ceiving this information the Center should estab- lish a working relationship with the student, Idiagnose the problem and start proceedings for the particular assistance needed, such as academic, social, or financial guidance. The Counseling Center should not be a "Remedial Center" but a clearing house to see that the academically disad- vantaged student is aware of the assistance avail- able in a college community and that they are re- ferred to and engaged by those services. 5. That the policy of Open admissions as utilized for the constituency that WCC serves should be extended to any student who because of suspected academic deficiency might otherwise be refused admittance. Suggestions For Further Study The following suggestions are made for further study: 109 Research should be done with emphasis on remediation through counseling, after such models as Upward Bound and tutorial programs that have been developed to assist students in minority groups. Studies should be conducted to ascertain the adapta- bility of such counseling programs for the academic- ally disadvantaged student at WCC. Research designed to determine factors, of motiva- tion, self—concepts, financial problems, early marriage, social problems and others which inter- fere with academic performance should be conducted. A study should be done to ascertain the reasons why the academically disadvantaged students drop out of WCC during the third year. A study should be done to ascertain the reasons why the regular college students who are rated as above average students drop out of college at the same rate as academically disadvantaged students. 110 Concluding Statement This study was implemented during the spring of 1972 and completed in June of 1973. The purpose was to assess remedial English programs for academically disad- vantaged young adults at Western Christian College. While investigating the selected factors that were included in the study, the absence of significant differ- ences in all areas except retention in college warrants the conclusion that the remedial English program as pre- viously administered at WCC was ineffective in raising the academic achievement of the academically disadvantaged student. The significant difference in proportions in reten- tion in college disappears at the third year; there was no significant difference during the third and fourth year at WCC between remedial English students and all other college students studied. In conclusion, the efforts to meet the academically disadvantaged students? needs through formal remedial Eng- lish programs at WCC was less than successful. More re- search is needed if we are to identify the factors that seem to help some academically disadvantaged students to 111 succeed when evidence suggests that they should not. Finally, remediation alone cannot get the job done. It may be that remediation through counseling is a too narrow approach. A broader approach designed to change attitudes and values, improve learning skills, and raise self concept may be needed. But, the locking of academ- ically disadvantaged students into a remedial education program presents a barrier, identifies them as inferior students and encourages dependence upon a program to get them through college. Individual consultation and reme- diation as opposed to a formal course would assist the academically disadvantaged student to be more independent in making his own choices in higher education-—choices that he ultimately must make for himself. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, H. B. "Will Project English Kill Freshman English?" College Composition and Communication, Vol. 14, No. 4, Dec., 1963. Archer, J. "The Status of Freshman Composition." College Composition and Communication. Vol. 19, No. 1, Feb., 1968. Astin, Alexander. College Dropouts: A National Profile. ACE Research Report, Vol. 7, No. 1, Feb., 1972. Boggs, J. R. A Development Research Plan for Junior Col- lege Remedial Education. 1969. ERIC-ED 022479. Cass, James. "The Magnitude of the American Educational Establishment," 1971-72. Saturday Review. Vol. 54, No. 51, Dec. 18, 1971, p. 68. Carlin, E. A. and Blackman, E. B. Curriculum Building in General Education. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company Publishers, 1960. Cohen, A. M. Dateline '79: Heretical Concepts for the Community College. Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe Press, 1969. Culbert, T. "Methodology in Research in Composition." College Composition. March, 1960. Edgerton, J. "High Risk." Southern Education Report. March, 1968. Edgerton, J. "High Risk--Five Looks." Southern Education Report. April, 1968. 112 113 Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1966. p. 446. Ferrin, R. Barriers to Universal Education. Palo Alto, California: Access Research Office College Exami- nation Board, March, 1970. Ford, N. A. "Improving Reading and Writing Skills of Dis- advantaged College Freshmen." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 18, No. 2, May, 1967. Garon, H. "Do Remedial English Students Eventually Earn Degrees?" College Composition and Communication. Vol. 18, No. 2, May, 1967. Green, R. L. "The Black Quest for Higher Education: An Admission Dilemma." The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 47, No. 9, May, 1969. Hechinger, F. M. "Open Admissions: Prophets of Doom Seem to Have Been Wrong." The New York Times. Sunday, March 28, 1971. Kitzhaber, A. R. "4C, Freshman English, and the Future." College Composition. Vol. 14, No. 3, Oct., 1963. Lins, L. J., Allan, P., and Hutchins, H. "Relative Use- fulness in Predicting Academic Success of the ACT, the SAT, and Some Other Variables." The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 35, No. 2, Winter, 1966. Losak, J. Do Remedial Programs Really Work? ERIC ED 046 975, Feb., 1971. Lyman, H. B. Intelligence, Aptitude and Achievement Test- ing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. McGrath, E. J. Universal Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966. Martin, H. "Freshman Composition: Harvard Beginnings." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 13, NO. 3' OCto' 19620 114 Mendenhall, T. C. "Admission Policy: Implications and Consequences." ERIC IRCD Bulletin, Winter, 1969. Noyes, E. S. "Teaching and Testing of English." College Composition and Communication, Nov., 1960. Peters, F. R. and Plog, E. L. "The Effectiveness of the ACT for Selection and Placement at the Ohio State University." Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 9, Dec., 1961. Roueche, J. E. Salvage, Redirection, or Custody? Remedial Education in the Community College. ERIC, American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. Roueche, J. E. and Boggs, J. R. Junior College Institu- tional Research: The State of the Art. ERIC, American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. Schenz, R. "What is Done for Low Ability Students." Junior College Journal. Vol. 34, May, 1964. . Western Christian College, 1972-73 Catalog. Western Christian College, Maple Wyoming. Vol. 21, No. 3, p. 129. Steinhoff, W. "Some Remarks on the Future of the Required Course in Freshman Composition." College Composi- tion and Communication, Vols. 10-12, No. 1, Feb., 1961. Stevenson, J. L. Implementing the Open Door: Compensatory Education in Florida's Community Colleges. Phase II--English Composition. ERIC ED 042 456. Sept., 1970. Stone, G. W. Issues, Problems and Approaches in the Teach- ing of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Thresher, B. A. "Frozen Assumptions in Admissions." Col- lege Admissions Policies for the 1970's. College Entrance Examination Board, New York, 1968. 115 Thomas, E. W. "Tentative Objectives for Freshman Remedial English." College Composition and Communication. Vol. 19, No. 1, Feb., 1968. Tighe, D. J. "The Shame of Freshman English." College Composition and Communication, Vol. 14, No. 1, Feb., 1963. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DATA GATHERING FORM APPENDIX A DATA GATHERING FORM Name 1. Date enrolled: 1961-64 1965-69 1970-72 1 2 3 2. Sex: Male Female 1 2 Other 3. Age: lg lg 32 {ll £3 23+ 0 1 2 3 4 5 4. Overall ACT standard score 5. English ACT standard score 6. Secondary Education: Public Church Other 1 2 3 7. Grade--Eng1ish l _1: 2 g B A 0 l 2 3 4 8. First Semester GPA 9. Grade-~Social Science Survey of Civilization 0 1 2 3 4 American History 0 l 2 3 4 History of the South 0 l 2 3 4 10. Grade--Re1igion Teachings of Jesus 0 l 2 3 4 Foundations of the Apostolic Movement 0 1 2 3 4 Old Testament Prophets 0 l 2 3 4 Pauline Epistles 0 l 2 3 4 116 ll. 12. 13. .14. 15. 16. 17. 117 Grade--Literature English American Grade--Communications Introduction to Public Speaking Voice and Diction Oral Interpretation Student remained 0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 sequential years at WCC. Did the student transfer credits to other institutions? Yes (1) N0 (2) Did the student graduate? Field of study 0 . 00 Yes (1) I-' [.1 P'H 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 No (2) GPA at time of graduation: .5 ubbub APPENDIX B CONVERSION CHART 1,] 1.14 ‘III. I APPENDIX B TABLE 23 CONVERSION CHART ACT, SAT, SCAT, COOP English Comparative Scores ACT %ile SAT (Big COOP %ile COOP %ile SCAT C Rank Total* 10) Rdg. Rank EE Rank Total 30 99 1366-1406 (1376) 79 99 84 99 99 29 97 1316-1356 (1323) 77 99 80 99 97 28 95 1266-1306 (1260) 75 97 77 97 95 27 91 1216-1256 (1214) 73 94 75 95 92 26 87 1166-1206 (1138) 71 90 73 91 89 25 82 1116-1156 (1125) 69 84 70 85 85 24 75 1066-1106 (1084) 67 76 68 77 81 23 68 1016-1056 (1043) p 65 67 66 72 77 22 61 966-1006 (998) 63 ‘56 63 59 74 21 53 916-956 (962) 62 ‘50 61 48 70- 20 46 866-906 (921) 60 39 59 38 66 19 38 816-856 (878) 58 28 57 31 62 18 31 766-806 (847) 57 23 55 24 59 17 25 716-756 (803) 55 15 52 15 56 16 19 666-706 (760) 53 10 49“ 6 52 15 15 616-656 (739) 51 .7 47 6 49 14 11 566-606 (717) 49 4. 45 4 45 13 8 516-556 (683) 46 2 42 2 41 12 5 466-506 (674) 44 l 39 1 38 ll 4 416-456 (660) 43 l 38 1 35 *California State College Admissions Study, 1965 APPENDIX C INDIVIDUAL DATA FOR GROUP TREATMENT 1I19 .oouwmn mummuomHgoomm m monocmv mumuumH mo mucmmbm gnu one Noumea mocmHum mumHoomm< cm mechme vaHm aches m wcH30HHom m< mumuumH 05H ««« .soomemuo pom wuoumuouHH :mHchmum .u:080>oz ucm>p< Ho mcoHumccsomnq .msmoh uo wcHnommenm .muoumHm cmoHuos¢u~ .coHumNHHH>Hu mo zw>u3mnH "mum mommmHo «a .oom .saoo m m m m m om.N o mH N NN.N msHossooo< .nsm s < m m m oN.N m mH o ss.N msHossooo< .nsm m o o o o o oo.N o mH m H o Nm.H o mH s mm.H Hose .sHso< .HHo m o so.H o 3H m H m om.N o mH N H o mw.H o mH H {COHumsvmuu «aseoummo c m s m N H «wumHSEDU H fimHHow Uhflfidflum 0>wuwHSE§U 02m um fimuumflmm HUumewm 80¢ soHHoHsm me onH anHmom HZMEHHQZH vm maHjfih 2120 .uumno mo wchcHwob um vcmme mom N NH.N ooH>NoN .asoo N o o N NN.N o NH NN H NN.H 0 NH HN NN.N .osoN .NNNN N o o o o N NN.H N NH oN N o o NN.H N NH NN N N o NN.H 0 HH NN N N N NN.H 0 NH NN NN.N .osoN HsHooNscsH N o o o NN.N N NH NN N o N o NN.H 0 NH NN H o o NN.N o NH NN NN.N NnoomHN N N o N o NN.N o NH NN NH.N soHNHHoNuHomNN N N N N N N NN.H N NH HN N o o o NH.N N NH NN NN.N .ossN .NNNN N N N o o N NN.H o NH NN N u NN.H o NH NN NH.N moHooaoNonz N o o N N NN.N N HH NN N N N N NN.H N No NN H N N NN.H N HH HN H N NN.H N NH NN N o o NN.H N NH NN N o N NN.H N NH NN H o NH.N N NH NN NN.N ooH>NoN .aaoo N o N o o NN.H o NH NN NN.N soHososoN .aoHN N o o NN.N 0 NH NN N o NN.N N NH NN H N NN.H N NH NN NN.N ooHNHHoNuHoosN N N o N N NN.H N No NN NN.N soHNHHoNuHooNN N N N N N N o NN.H N NH HN N N o N NN.H o NH oN NN.N ooH>ooN .asoo N o o N N NN.H o NH NH «ooHosanuo NNNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN soosno snooN oooHNNN um HumH=sso H :mHHwam pumpcmum 0>HumHDESO 02m um vmuUmHmm Hmumwfimm HU< NoHHoNsN NHN onH smHHNNN 121. .uumcu mo wchchob um pcome mmm« H N NN.H o NH NoH N o o N o o NN.H 0 NH HoH H N NN.N N HH ooH HH.N coHumusom .amHm N < N m m mm.~ m HH ma H o NN.H N No No H NN.N o NH Ho H o NN.H o NH NN mo.N conHHNMIHomna N u u o a NH.N u mH no H N N NN.H N NH Na H N o N NN.N N NH NN H o o NN.H N NH Ha H N NN.N N No NH NN.N HNNV .oHENN .NNo N N o o NN.H o NH NH HN.N HNNV NsHmst N o N N N NH.N N NH NH H o NH.N N NH NH NN.N soHososoN .soHN N o N N N NH.N o NH NH H o N NN.H N NH HH HN.N NsHossooo< .msN N N o N N N NH.N N NH NH N o NH.N o No NN N N N NN.H N NH NN HH.N HnoNNHN N N o o N N N NN.H N NH HN H N NN.N o NH NN N o o N NH.N o NH NN H o NN.N N NH NN H N NN.N o NH NN NN.N noHNHHoN N o N N o o NN.N o NH NN NN.N oHst N o N o o N Hc.N N NH NN N N HN.H N HH NN N N o Ho.N N NH NN «ooHonsnsNo «NNooNNoN N N N N N H «NNN «sense oNooN oooanN um HumH=Eou H :mHchm pumpcmum m>H umHDEHHU 02m um @wuumHmm HmummBmm 80¢ poHHoucm me NmH :mHHwam 1122 .uumno wo wchcmea um wcmmmH mwm « N N N N NN.H N NH NNH N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH H NH.N N NH HNH NN.N NNoHoHN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNH H N NN.H N HH NNH H N N HH.N N NH HNH N N N N NN.N N NH NNH NN.N HuoumHN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH H N N N NN.H N NH NNH NN.N NN Nchusz N N N N NN.N N NH HNH NN.N coHumosuN .aoHN N N N N N N NN.N N NN NNH NN.N NUH>NNN .aaoN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH H N N NN.H N HH NNH N N N HN.H N NH NNH N N N N HN.N N NH HNH H N N HN.H N NH NNH NN.N .NNNN HNHNHNNNNH N N N N N NN.H N NH NHH N N N N NN.H N NH NHH HH.N aoHNHHmNuHoNNN N N N N N NN.H N NN HHH N N N N N NN.N N NH NHH N N N NN.N N NH NHH N N N HN.N N HH NHH N N N HN.N N NH NHH N N N N N N NH.N N NH NHH N N N N NN.H N HH NHH H N NH.N N NH NNH H N NN.N N NH NNH H N NN.H N NN NNH H N NH.H N NH NNH NNoHNNaNNNN «NNNNNNNN N N N N N H *NNN NNNNNN «Noam NumNNNN um 4&0 Amummkv «*mmmmmao m>wumH2§U H fimwflwcm Guava—Mum m>HumHDEHHU 02m um Umuomem Hmumwfimm HU< NNHHoNNN NHN NNH 2123 .uumsu mo wchchmn um wcmwma mmm N NN.N UHmsz N N N NN.H N NH HNH N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNH N N N N N N NH.N N NH NNH H N N NN.H N NH NNH N N N N NH.N N NH NNH H N N N N NN.H N NH NNH H N N NH.N N NH HNH N N N NN.N N NH NNH N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH N N N N N NN.N N NH HNH NN.N NaHuasouoNnmsN N N N N NN.N N NH NNH NH.N NoHNHHmNuHomNN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNH N N NN.N N NH NNH HH.N .NNNN .NHNN N N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH «NNHNNNNNNN «NNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN «NNNNN mNoNN NNNNNNN um HumHSEHHO H Smflchm wumficmum m>NumH=B=o 02m um vmuumamm “wummamm 90¢ NmHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN IL24 mcoHumucaomuq .NSNNN mo mcfisummenm .Nuoumwm amuuumaHo mo Nm>u=mua .mmuwma mummuamamoomm m mmuocmv mumuuma mo mocmmnm mnu Nam mmuwma moamfiom mumfioomm< am mmwmacwfim vaNm acmma m mafiaoaaom m< mumNNMH ~58 ««« .summmmuc wan muaumumqu :mNchmnm .uamaw>oz uam>u< mo .NuN Nam NuN .NuN .NuH .NnN ”mum mmmmmao «« "03m um cum: amummm mcaumuo « HN.N NaHucsouoNrmsN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNH N N NN.H N NH NNH NH.N NaHuaaouoNumaN N N N N NN.N N NH NNH N N N N N N NN.N N NH HNH NH.N NoHNHHmNuHomNN N N N N N N N NH.N N NH HNH NN.N NoHNHHNNuHoNNN N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH NN.N NoHumosNNuumsuaH N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH N N N N NN.H N NH NNH H N NN.H N HH HNH N N N N N N HH.N N NH NHH NN.N NoHuNNNNNuumaccH N N N N N NN.N N NH NHH N N N N N NN.H N NH NHH NH.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N NN.H N NH NNH N N N N NH.H N NN NNH NH.N NuonHN N N N N N N N NN.N N NH HNH H N N NN.N N NH NNH «soHuNNNNNN «NNNNHNNN N N N N N H «NNN «NNNNN muoum NNNNNNN um 4&0 Amumwhv «*mmmmMHO 0>HUMHD§U H SmflHme UHflfidMum QHSUMHNHBHHU 05m um vmuoonm Hmummamm 804 NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN HZMZBHQZH mm.mflHm2nw 125 .uumnu mo mafiaafimon um wcmwma 0mm « H N N N NN.N N NN HNN NN.N mcoHumoHasaaoN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNN H N N N NN.H N N NNN N N N HN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNoHOHN N N N N N NH.N N NH HNN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN HN.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmuaz N N N N N NH.N N NN HNN N N N N N HN.N N NH NNN N N N N N N NN.N N HH NNN H N N HH.H N NH NNN N N N N N HN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHNNNz N N N N N NN.H N NH. NNN N N N N N NN.N N NH HNN N N N N NN.N N NH NHN NN.N HNNN Nchusz N N N N NN.N N NN NHN NN.N NoHNHHmNuHomNN N N N N N N NH.N N NH NHN N N N NH.N N NH NNN NN.N NHNNN N N N N N NN.N N NH HNN NN.N moHuNamNNNz N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N N HH.N N NH NNN N N N N NN.N N NH NNN H N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N NoHuNosNN .aoHN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N NNHuasoouNrmaN N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH NN.N aoHuNosNN .aoHN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNH NN.N NoHNHHmNuHoNNN N N N N N N NN.N N NH HNH NNoHNNaNmNN «NNNNNNNN N N N N N H NNNN NNNNNN mNooN HNNNNNN um Numasa=u H smHawcm Numwamum m>HumHD§O Dim um fimuUOHmm kummamm 904 NNHHONNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN :126 .uumnu mo wawcaflmmn um vammoa mum « NN.N mNoHNNNHaaaaoN N N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N HH.H N NH NNN N N N N N NN.H N NH HNN N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N NH.H N NN NNN NN.N aoHNNNNNN .eNHN N N N N N N HN.N N NH NNN HH.N NoHNHHNNuHoNNN N N N N N N HN.N N HH HNN H N N HN.H N NH NHN HN.N NoHNHHoNuHoNNN N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmNaz N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmusz N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN .NN .NNN N N N NH.N N HH NNN NN.N NoHuNosNN .aNHN N N N N N NN.N N NH HNN N N N N NN.H N NN NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmuaz N _ N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N NoHNHHmNnHoNNN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNN H N N N HN.N. N NH HNN H N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N NoHNHHmN3HoNNN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NH.N NNHNNaoNNNuNNN N N N N N N NN.H N NH HNN H N N N N HN.H N NH NNN HN.N NoHuNuauNuumsucH N N N N N NN.N N NH HNN N N N HN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.N N NH NNN H N N N N NH.H N NH NNN NN.N maoHumoHasaaoN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NaoHuNNNNNN «NNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN NNNNNN muooN NNNNNNN um Numasabo H :NNchm unavamum w>HumHDBHHU 03m um flquwHOm Hmummfimm HU< NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN 2127 .uumno mo mNHcanmn um vamwwH mam « NH.N HNNN .NN .NNN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmNaz N N N HN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNNN .omN .Noz N N N N HH.H N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmuaz N N N N NH.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN Nchuaz N N N NH.N N NH NNN NH.N HNNN NNHmusz N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN .NN .NNN N N N HN.H N NH HNN N N N N N N NN.H N NH NHN HN.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N N HN.N N NH NHN H N NN.H N NH NHN N N N N N NN.N N NH NHN N N N N NN.N N NN NHN N N N HH.N N NH HHN N N N N NN.N N NH NHN H N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N N HN.H N NH NNN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNN N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N N NN.N N NH NHN H N N NN.H N NH HHN HN.N HNNN NaHmusz N N N N N N NN.N N HH NHN N N N N HN.N N NH NHN N N N N N HN.N N HH NNN N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N N N NN.H N NH HNN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN HN.N NoHumosNN .aoHN N N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N N NN.H N HN NNN Naoaumavmuu «NNNNNwmn o m N m N H «HumH=a=o H smHHwam vumvamum U>HumHHHBSU 02m um kuomHom Hmummawm 90¢ NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN 1128 .uumnN Ho wchaHmmn um vamme mwm « H N N N NH.N N NH NHN NH.N mNoHumoHaaaaoN N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N NNHaoNouN maoN N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN .NN NNHNNN N N N N N NN.H N NH HNN H N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N N NH.H N NH NNN N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N NH.H N NH HNN H N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.H N NH HNN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N NN.H N HH HNN H HH.N N NH NNN H N NN.H N NH NNN H N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N NH.N N NH NNN N N N N N NN.H N HH NHN H N N N NN.N N HH NHN H N NN.N N NH NHN H N N N NN.N N NH NHN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N N N NN.N N NN HNN N N N N N NN.N N HH NNN H N N NN.N N NH HNN N N N N N N N NN.H N NH NNN NN.N NoHumosNN .amHN N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N NOHuNosNNuumaNcH N N N N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NN.N HNNN NNHmusz N N N N NN.N N NH HNN NNoHNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN «NNNNN muoom NNNNNNN um HumHHHEHHU H SmHHwHNm vumvcmum mHfinumHDESU . 03m um vOuUmHmm Hmummamm 80¢ NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN 2129 NCOHumwcnomuN .mnmmh mo wcHsummHnm .zuonHm cmufiumaHU mo zm>uamuH .mwummn mummusmHmoumm m mmuoamv mumuuwH mo mocmmnm mnu cam mmuwmn wocwHum NumHuomm< cm NNHMHame vaHH NONNE m wcHonHOH m< muwuumH use NNN .sowmamlo can musumumuHA smHHmamum .ucmem>oz acm>v< mo "mum mommmHu NN .HumHHHEHHU H SmHHme UHmvamum m>HuMHDEHHU 02m um UwuumHmm Hmummflmm 80¢ NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN HZMZHHQZH mm mflHm¢flv 1J30 .uumso mo wcHaanmn um vamme mum N N NN.N N NH NoN H N NN.H N NH New N o u N NN.H N NH NNN N N NN.H N NH HNN N N N N u NN.N 0 NH NNN N N o N NN.N N NH NNN H N N NN.H N NH NNN N N NN.N N NH HNN N N o N NN.N 0 HH NNN N o N N NN.H 0 NH NNN N o o NN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N NH.N 0 NH NNN H u NN.H 0 NH NNN H NN.N N HH HNN H N NN.H N NH NNN H N N o HN.H N NH NNN H N N o HH.H N NH NNN NN.N HNNN .NN NNHNNN N N N N NN.N N NN HNN N N o N NN.N N NH NNN N N N NN.N N NH NNN H N NH.H N NH NNN H o NN.H N NH NNN H N NN.N N NH NNN N N N N o NN.H N No HNN H N NN.H N NH NNN N N N N NN.H N NH NNN H N N NN.N N NH NNN H N NN.H 0 NH HNN «NoHNNsNNNN NNNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN «NNNNN ououm NNNNNNN um HumH=BDU H SmHHwam cumvcmum 0>H umHHHSHHU Dim um vmuomdmm Hmummamm 904 NNHHoNNN NHN NNH NNHHNNN 131 .uumnu mo wchcwan um wcwme mum « N N NN.N N NH NNN H N NN.N N No HNN N N N N NN.N N HH NNN H N N NN.H N NH NHN N N N N N HN.N N NH NHN N N N N NN.N N NH NHN H N NH.N N NH NHN N N N N N NH.N N NH NHN N N N N N NN.H N NH NHN NH.N HNNN Nchusz N N N HN.H N NH NHN H N N N N NH.N N NH HHN NN.N HNNN NcNmusz N N NN.N N NH NHN N N HN.H N NH NNN H N NN.N N NH NNN N N N NN.N N HH NNN N N NN.H N NH NNN H N N N N NN.N N NH NNN NaoHumswmuN NNNNNNNNN N N N N N H «NNN «NNNNN muoum NUNNNNN um HumHHHBHHU H nwwHme vumvfimnum m>fiumH§§H0 . 02m um wmuomem Hmummamm HU< voHHoucm me NNH NNHchm 3 1293 01062 343 ”I am H ll " H n " TN S" III!