Developmental: Skills or Capabilities?

At a recent conference (MDEC, the Michigan affiliate of NADE), we were having a conversation with Hunter Boylan about developmental education. One of the participants commented that a major concern was that students sometimes leave developmental courses as developmental students.

What did they mean by ‘developmental students’?  I think the basic concern is that students were leaving our courses without the capabilities (not abilities) to handle college academic work.  One of my colleagues who is a ‘reading’ faculty commented that it seems like the developmental course was a collection of discrete skills which did not add up to any additional capabilities.

There is a somewhat different point of view for professionals engaged with NADE or the National Center for Developmental Education (which is directed by Hunter Boylan).  Their framework specifically includes ‘personal growth’, referring to a collection of cognitive and affective factors … which I categorize as ‘capabilities’.    [The “NADE-type” definition of developmental implies that it is not a nicer name for remedial; most of us in the mathematics community equate the two phrases.   As implemented, most developmental math programs are ‘remedial’; I wish they were not.]

In reading, for example, parsing a phrase … vocabulary … decoding … these are groups of skills; however, without additional capabilities, students remain developmental in their functioning — resulting in a higher risk of failure in college courses.  That is, basic literacy skills are not sufficient in a good developmental reading program.

How does a typical developmental math program compare?  Sadly, I think we are the epitome of skill courses that do not impact the capabilities of our students.  A beginning algebra course usually has 8 to 10 chapters of material, with a preponderance of … parsing phrases … vocabulary … procedures; our ‘applications’ are mostly stylized puzzle problems which avoid the need to think deeply about relationships.  In fact, we sometimes take pride in providing rules or tools to cope with word problems so students do not have to analyze them. 

A basic reason behind the New Life project is this:  serving up skills with symbols does not change the capabilities of our students.  Dealing with basic concepts, connections, transfer, analysis … this process changes the capabilities of our students.  It is our belief that good preparation for college work is based on an emphasis on deeper academic work in ‘developmental’ courses.

As you look at the learning outcomes for New Life (or the New Mathways), keep in mind that the model is making a serious attempt to build student capabilities.  Since there is not a linear sequence of basic skills, you will have to work harder to understand what the curriculum is trying to accomplish for our students.

Any course — ‘developmental’ or not — that only seeks to add skills to a student, without a larger focus on capabilities, is a missed opportunity.  When that course is used in a gate-keeper fashion (like mathematics is), we need to move towards a design that truly helps our students.

 
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.