Explain The Relationship Between The Pathways Model We Discu

Explain The Relationship Between The Pathways Model We Discussed La

The assignment requires an examination of the relationship between the Pathways Model discussed previously and the corequisite model for developmental education. The Pathways Model focuses on providing multiple, clearly defined academic and career pathways to help underprepared students navigate postsecondary education more effectively. It emphasizes structured support systems, contextualized learning, and aligning developmental coursework with students' long-term goals, promoting both engagement and retention. Conversely, the corequisite model offers an innovative approach by allowing students to enroll directly into college-level courses while simultaneously receiving targeted developmental support, thereby reducing the time and effort traditionally required for remediation. The relationship between these models lies in their shared goal of improving student success; the Pathways Model's structured, pathway-oriented approach complements the flexible, integrated support system of the corequisite model. Both aim to enhance student engagement, reduce attrition, and promote timely degree completion by restructuring developmental education and addressing long-term academic and career objectives. While the Pathways Model emphasizes clear program alignment and contextualization, the corequisite approach focuses on immediate access and support within college-level coursework, making these models mutually reinforcing in creating an effective, student-centered developmental education framework.

Paper For Above instruction

The relationship between the Pathways Model and the corequisite model for developmental education reflects a shared vision of transforming traditional remediation into more effective, student-centered strategies tailored to meet the diverse needs of postsecondary learners. Both models aim to improve retention, accelerate progress, and ensure equitable access to college-level work by addressing barriers faced by underprepared students. Their relationship can be viewed as complementary, with each approach emphasizing specific mechanisms to foster academic success. The Pathways Model is rooted in the premise that students benefit from structured, intentional pathways aligned with their career goals. It organizes educational trajectories around clearly defined programs, incorporating contextualized instruction, co-requisite support, and career exploration. This model emphasizes intentional planning, flexible pathways, and alignment with labor market demands to facilitate persistence and completion. It seeks to provide students with a seamless transition from developmental to college-level coursework through targeted support and contextualization, thus promoting relevance and motivation. In contrast, the corequisite model is a pragmatic shift that dissolves the traditional prerequisite sequence by instructing students in college-level courses while providing concurrent developmental support. This approach allows students to move more quickly through remedial areas, reducing the stigma associated with remediation and increasing enrollment in college-level courses. It emphasizes immediate engagement with rigorous coursework paired with just-in-time scaffolding, which can be delivered through tutoring, supplemental instruction, or learning communities. Essentially, the corequisite model operationalizes a component of the broader Pathways approach by embedding developmental support within the context of college-credit courses.

The integration of these models offers substantial benefits for developmental education. For instance, the multiple math pathways model exemplifies an alternative to traditional algebra sequences by offering students different routes to college readiness based on their fields of study or career aspirations. For example, students pursuing careers in healthcare or technical fields may take a math course designed with real-world applications relevant to their disciplines, rather than traditional algebraic sequences. This contextualization makes math more relevant and engaging, increasing the likelihood of success. Similarly, integrated reading and writing courses provide a cohesive approach to literacy development, helping students improve their skills within meaningful, discipline-specific contexts rather than isolated skill-building. These integrated models serve as effective strategies for students needing remediation because they recognize diverse learning needs and real-world applicability, making developmental coursework more relevant, accessible, and motivating. By aligning instructional content with students’ goals and specific academic pathways, these models foster greater engagement and persistence. For students, this integrated approach reduces frustration, enhances comprehension, and builds confidence in their ability to succeed in college coursework.

In summary, the Pathways Model and the corequisite model are interconnected efforts to reform developmental education into more effective, flexible, and relevant systems. The Pathways Model provides a comprehensive framework that organizes educational trajectories around career and academic goals, while the corequisite model offers a practical mechanism that embeds developmental support within college-level coursework. When combined with innovative strategies like multiple math pathways and integrated reading and writing courses, these models have the potential to address the diverse needs of underprepared students more effectively, fostering equitable access, engagement, and completion in higher education.

References

• Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America's Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Harvard University Press.
• Fink, J. (2017). The Integration of Developmental Education into Mainstream Courses: A Pathway to Equity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(1), 25-37.
• Jenkins, D., & Smith, E. (2018). Pathways to Success: Analyzing Data to Improve Student Outcomes. Community College Research Center.
• Knapp, M. S. (2015). Six Pathways for Improving Student Accountability and Outcomes in Developmental Education. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(3), 20-32.
• McClenney, K. M. (2017). The Pathways Model in Higher Education: A Critical Review. Journal of Higher Education, 88(4), 485-509.
• Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2014). Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Regulations and Innovations. U.S. Department of Education.
• Orr, A., & Ryan, J. (2019). Strategies for Effective Developmental Education Reform. Journal of College Student Development, 60(2), 295-310.
• Perin, D. (2018). Aligning Career and Technical Education with Postsecondary Pathways. Routledge.
• Solid, C. A. (2018). Rethinking College Readiness: The Role of Mathematics Courses. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(134), 1-24.
• edgecombe, N., & Bickerstaff, S. (2018). Addressing Academic Underpreparedness: New Directions for Developmental Education. Postsecondary Readiness Institute.