Advertisement

Remediation in College: Some Preliminary Considerations for Establishing Support Schemes for Omani At-Risk Students

  • Sergio Saleem Scatolini
  • A. S. M. Shamim Miah
  • Milton A. George
Chapter
Part of the English Language Education book series (ELED, volume 15)

Abstract

For approximately 20 years, the government of the Sultanate of Oman, under the leadership of Sultan Qaboos, has sought to lay the foundations for Oman’s transition to a knowledge society. Great improvements have been made in this direction, and the country has enjoyed continued development across almost every area of its social and economic life during this period. However, there is still work to be done, especially in the area of human capital and co-citizenship, with this being particularly true in relation to education. For instance, the fact that almost all students leaving secondary education need foundation programs reveals that they are not really “college ready.” They require remediation and support, especially in English, mathematics, and IT. This paper looks at some preliminary concepts and concerns which could be beneficial to Omani colleges seeking to set up support, or remedial, programs, and structures, before discussing the ways in which such programs can have a positive impact on students who may otherwise not complete their studies.

Keywords

Remedial Remediation At-risk students College Oman 

References

  1. Agada, J. (2001). Deconstructing the at-risk student phenomenon: Can librarian values salvage education for the 21st century? In H. Thompson (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Proceedings of the 10th National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries (pp. 81–88). Denver, CO: Association of College Research Libraries.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Issa, A., & Al-Bulushi, A. (2012). English language teaching reform in Sultanate of Oman: The case of theory and practice disparity. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 11(2), 141–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2012a). A student perspective on low English proficiency in Oman. International Education Studies, 6(5), 263–271.  https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n6p263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Mahrooqi, R. (2012b). Reading literature in English: Challenges facing Omani college students. Asian EFL Journal, 57(4), 24–51. Retrieved from http://asian-efl-journal.com/journal-2012/.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Mahrooqi, R., & Sultana, T. (2012). FL attrition among Omani teachers of English: Teachers’ perceptions. In A. Mahmoud & R. Al-Marooqi (Eds.), Issues in teaching and learning English as a Foreign language in the Arab world (pp. 47–66). Muscat, Oman: Sultan Qaboos University Academic Publication Board.Google Scholar
  6. Al-Mamari, A. S. (2012, February 20–21). General foundation program in higher education institutions in Oman national standards: Implementation and challenges. Paper presented at Oman quality network regional conference, Muscat, Oman.Google Scholar
  7. Bahr, P. R. (2012). Deconstructing remediation in community colleges: Exploring associations between course-taking patterns, course outcomes, and attrition from the remedial math and remedial writing sequences. Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 661–693.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9243-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, J. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baporikar, N., & Shah, I. A. (2012). Quality of higher education in 21st century: A case study of Oman. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(2), 9–18.Google Scholar
  10. Bernard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  11. Boyer, P. G., Butner, B. K., & Smith, D. (2007). A portrait of remedial instruction: Faculty workload and assessment techniques. Higher Education, 54(4), 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  13. Bulger, S., & Watson, D. (2006). Broadening the definition of at-risk students. The Community College Enterprise, 12(2), 23–32.Google Scholar
  14. Bushman, J., & Haas, K. (2001). Using young adult literature in the English classroom (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, M., Razvi, S., & Goddliffe, T. (2009). Using foundation program academic standards as a quality enhancement tool. Paper presented at the annual international network for quality assurance agencies in higher education, Dubai, United Arab EmiratesGoogle Scholar
  16. David, S. A., Taleba, H., Scatolini, S. S., Al-Qallaf, A., Al-Shammari, H. S., & George, M. A. (2017). An exploration into student learning mobility in higher education among the Arabian Gulf cooperation council countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 55, 41–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fine, M. (1986). Why urban adolescents drop into and out of public high school. Teachers College Record, 87(3), 393–409.Google Scholar
  18. Frattura, E., & Capper, C. A. (2006). Segregated programs versus integrated comprehensive service delivery. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1992). The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiroto, D. S., & Seligman, M. E. (1975). Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horn, L. J. (1997). Confronting the odds: Students at risk and the pipeline to higher education. Statistical analysis report. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).Google Scholar
  22. Ilieva, J., Killingley, P., Vangelis, T., & Peak, M. (2017). The shape of global higher education (vol. 2): International mobility of students, research and education provision. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  23. Ilieva, J., & Peak, M. (2016). The shape of global higher education: National policies framework for international engagement. London: British Council.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, G. M. (1998). Principles of instruction for at-risk learners. Preventing School Failure, 42(4), 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaufman, N. (2011). A practical roadmap for the perilous journey from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability. Journal of Healthcare Management, 56(5), 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufman, P., & Bradbury, D. (1992). Characteristics of at-risk students in NELS:88: Contractor report. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Education – Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  27. MacDonald, S. B. (2005). Rethinking Europe’s culture of entitlement. Society, 42(6), 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mallon, F. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring and mentoring schemes. In K. Topping & S. Maloney (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 173–188). London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malnarich, G. (2005). Learning communities and curricular reform: ‘Academic apprenticeships’ for developmental students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129, 51–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCabe, R. H. (2003). Yes we can! A community college guide for developing America’s underprepared. Phoenix, AZ: League for Innovation in the Community College and American Association of Community Colleges.Google Scholar
  31. McKeachie, W., & Svinicki, M. (1994). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  32. Mosen‐Lowe, L. A., Vidovich, L., & Chapman, A. (2009). Students ‘at‐risk’ policy: Competing social and economic discourses. Journal of Education Policy, 24(4), 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mpofu, E., Rusch, F. R., Chan, S., Engelbrecht, P., Mutepfa, M. M., Ruhode, N., et al. (2010). Remedial education. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology (pp. 806–808). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nunan, T., George, R., & McCausland, H. (2005). Inclusive education in universities: Why it is important and how it might be achieved. In K. Topping & S. Maloney (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 173–188). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  35. Oxford, R. (1994). Language learning strategies: An update. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from https://www.ericdigests.org/1995-2/update.htm
  36. Parsons, C. (2005). School exclusions in the UK: Numbers, trends and variations. In K. Topping & S. Maloney (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 131–142). London: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenbaum, J. E., Becker, K. I., Cepa, K. A., & Zapata-Gietl, C. E. (2016). Turning the question around: Do colleges fail to meet students’ expectations? Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 519–543.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9398-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruff, T. P. (1993). Middle school students at risk: What do we do with the most vulnerable children in American education? Middle School Journal, 24(5), 10–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slavin, R. S. (1992). Research methods in education (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, NJ: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  40. Stockard, J., & Mayberry, M. (1992). Effective educational environments. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  41. Topping, K., & Maloney, S. (Eds.). (2005). The RoutledgeFalmer reader in inclusive education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  42. Wang, M. C., & Gordon, E. W. (1994). Educational resilience in inner-city America: Challenges and prospects. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1994). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Werner, E. E. (1986). The concept of risk from a developmental perspective. In B. K. Keogh (Ed.), Advances in special education: Vol. 4. Developmental problems in infancy and the pre-school years (pp. 27–43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  46. Westwood, P. (2005). Adapting curriculum and instruction. In K. Topping & S. Maloney (Eds.), The RoutledgeFalmer reader in inclusive education (pp. 250–260). London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Saleem Scatolini
    • 1
  • A. S. M. Shamim Miah
    • 2
  • Milton A. George
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Rustaq College of EducationAl-RustaqOman
  2. 2.University of BuraimiAl BuraimiOman
  3. 3.Sohar College of Applied Sciences (Sohar CAS)SoharOman
  4. 4.Catholic University LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations