As more community colleges move away from developmental education and encourage students to enroll in introductory, transfer-level coursework to complete their math and English requirements, it is critical to provide students with additional academic supports to help them succeed. As colleges respond to AB 705 and AB 1705, California has encouraged institutions to develop cocurricular support models to help students succeed in introductory, transfer-level courses. One such model is the corequisite course, a model that offers math or English courses with a separate support lab to provide academic remediation.
Research has shown that corequisites can produce higher completion rates than developmental education (Cuellar Meija et al., 2020; Jenkins et al., 2010; Logue et al., 2019; Ran & Lin., 2022). Despite these findings, the story is not quite so clear in California, where community colleges have seen more mixed outcomes among students enrolled in course sections with and without the corequisite model (Cuellar Mejia et al., 2023). Why might this be the case? Research for Action (RFA) is studying these reforms in California as part of a five-year study funded by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). Based on field work in a sample of 13 community colleges, we have identified a number of variations in the model and challenges to implementation that may help to answer that question.
Indeed, corequisite course implementation can vary widely in several areas, such as the timing of academic supports, the characteristics of faculty assigned to the courses, the instructional modalities used, the math pathways available through the courses, and the class composition and size (Ryu et al., 2022). Building on this understanding, RFA found the following issues with corequisite courses in sample community colleges included in the study:
- There is considerable variation in the who, what, and when of corequisite courses. We found several different ways that corequisite courses were structured across colleges and sometimes across sections within a department. For instance:
- Who is teaching the main course and the support lab? One of the structural elements that varied in our sample colleges was whether the same instructor taught both the main and support courses. When the instructors are different, they must work to align their course content and assignments; otherwise, misalignment can result in confusion for students and faculty.
Furthermore, corequisite courses sometimes include embedded tutors and learning communities. Embedded tutors are typically community college students who have successfully completed an introductory math or English course and then are recruited to provide support to students currently taking the course. Similarly, in some cases course sections were reserved for students in a learning community, typically a cohort of students with a common background who receive support in achieving academic success over the course of a semester; one example is the Puente program.
- What content is being covered in the support lab? The support lab was sometimes used to cover additional content instead of providing remedial support on material covered in the main course. The primary purpose of the support lab is to provide additional support to ensure student success in the main course. However, this was not always the case, particularly in math courses.
- When is the support lab offered in relation to the primary course? The timing of the academic support varied. While additional academic support is designed to be provided in a support lab adjacent to the main course, there was still variation in the support lab schedule in some cases: they could be scheduled immediately before or after the main course or on a different day from the main course.
- Student enrollment in corequisite courses is typically recommended but not required. Across our case study institutions, most campuses did not require students whose placement results fell below a particular threshold to enroll in sections of introductory, transfer-level courses using the corequisite model. In addition, students who needed the support most were often not enrolling in the corequisite sections for several reasons, including confusion about the support lab options, limited time in student schedules to enroll in a supported section due to the additional unit load, and limited section availability. This stands in contrast to many of the studies that have found positive outcomes associated with corequisite model in which students were assigned to the course, often through a randomized, controlled trial (Logue et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2021).
- Registration processes for corequisite support labs can be complicated and burdensome for students. The corequisite model typically requires enrollment in two individual courses: the primary lecture course and the support lab. Faculty respondents described the registration process with the corequisite model as cumbersome and acknowledged that it can be confusing to students.
- There can be a large unit or credit load with the corequisite model. Along with the number of units for the transfer-level course, a support lab attaches additional units to the overall unit load. These additional units create equity issues for many students due to the additional time and tuition required to enroll in a course with a support lab.
- The level of faculty professional development and support does not always reflect the challenge of implementing the corequisite model. Community college faculty often have limited pedagogical training, and the implementation of corequisite courses requires differentiated instruction, which can be challenging. Teaching corequisites also requires additional preparation. Institutions varied in whether they provided professional development and stipends to faculty teaching corequisite courses.
- Grades for the main corequisite course and paired support lab may be different. Given that the transfer-level course and the support labs are separate, it is possible for students to pass one and not the other. Colleges typically do not allow students to retake courses that they have already passed. Therefore, if a student passes the support course but not the main course, it may mean that they cannot retake the support course even if they need additional support to be successful in the main course.
These variations and challenges in implementation outlined above may help to explain, in part, why outcomes have varied in California.
As California continues to focus on developmental education reform, addressing these considerations will be crucial for maximizing the potential of corequisite support models. By learning from early implementation experiences and continuously refining approaches, community colleges can work toward ensuring that all students have the support they need to succeed in college-level coursework and achieve their academic goals.