Skip to content
  • Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery

Focus Areas

  • Dual Enrollment
  • Developmental Education
  • Guided Pathways
  • Advising & Student Supports
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Transfer
  • College to Career
Menu
  • Dual Enrollment
  • Developmental Education
  • Guided Pathways
  • Advising & Student Supports
  • Teaching & Learning
  • Transfer
  • College to Career

Publications Library

CCRC’s complete collection of publications

Presentations

Webinars and conference presentations with CCRC researchers

Guided Pathways Workshops

Materials from our do-it-yourself workshop series

Policy Resources

Our collection of federal policy briefs and fact sheets

  • CCRC Staff
  • Research Affiliates
  • Advisory Board
  • Employment
  • Biennial Report
  • Contact
Menu
  • CCRC Staff
  • Research Affiliates
  • Advisory Board
  • Employment
  • Biennial Report
  • Contact
  • CCRC in the News
  • Opinion
  • Press Releases
Menu
  • CCRC in the News
  • Opinion
  • Press Releases
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs
  • Overview
  • Important Dates
  • FAQs

Expanding Access to College-Level Courses

By Dan Cullinan, Elisabeth A. Barnett, Elizabeth M. Kopko, Andrea Lopez Salazar & Tiffany Morton

Colleges throughout the United States are evaluating the strategies used to decide whether students should be placed into college-level or developmental education courses. Usually, colleges use standardized placement tests to determine if students need developmental, or remedial, courses, which are designed to develop the reading, writing, or math skills of students deemed underprepared for college-level courses. However, increasing numbers of colleges are using multiple measures—including additional types of placement tests, high school transcripts, and evaluations of student motivation—to place students.

There is no single, correct way to design and implement multiple measures assessments (MMA) to improve course placements. Colleges must decide what measures to include and how to combine them. This study was developed to add to the field’s understanding about the implementation, cost, and efficacy of an MMA system using locally determined rules. As part of a randomized controlled trial, the study team evaluated MMA programs and interviewed and observed staff at five colleges in Minnesota and Wisconsin; it also wrote a short case study about one Wisconsin college.

The five colleges in the random assignment study targeted all students taking placement tests in the months before the fall 2018 semester. In the four colleges included in the current analysis, 5,282 students participated in the study; of these, 3,677 were tested for English, and 4,487 were tested for math. The findings suggest that while implementation (especially automation) was not easy, it was possible; and using the new MMA systems became much easier once they were established.

Regarding the quantitative findings, in the first semester:

  • As intended, colleges used MMA to place program group students in their courses, with few exceptions. As a result, more program group students than control group students were referred to college-level gatekeeper courses, by 15 to 17 percentage points.
  • Program group students in the full sample also enrolled in more college-level gatekeeper courses than control group students (4.7 percentage points more in English; 3.9 percentage points more in math).
  • Students in the “bump up” zone⁠—those eligible for college-level placement based only on MMA results, not a single standardized placement test—who placed into college-level English because they were in the program group were 28 percentage points more likely to have completed the gatekeeper English course by the end of their first college semester than their control group counterparts.
  • Students in the “bump up” zone who placed into college-level math were 12 percentage points more likely to have completed the gatekeeper math course by the end of their first college semester than their control group counterparts.

The next and final report will present an analysis of transcript outcomes from three semesters of follow-up and will add two more cohorts to the research sample.

Download report
December 2019
Download executive summary
December 2019
  • Multiple Measures Assessment Project

Related Publications

December 2021

Increasing Gatekeeper Course Completion: Three-Semester Findings From an Experimental Study of Multiple Measures Assessment and Placement

September 2018

Multiple Measures Placement Using Data Analytics: An Implementation and Early Impacts Report

July 2018

Toward Better College Course Placement: A Guide to Launching a Multiple Measures Assessment System

Additional Resources

For more policy briefs and fact sheets, visit CCRC’s Policy Resources page.

  • Our Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery
  • Our Research
  • About Us
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery

Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University
Box 174 | 525 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027

  • 212.678.3091
  • ccrc@columbia.edu

© 2025. All rights reserved.

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin Youtube Instagram
Join our mailing list
  • Our Research
    • Focus Areas
    • Publications Library
    • Presentations
    • Guided Pathways Workshops
    • Policy Resources
  • About Us
    • CCRC Staff
    • Research Affiliates
    • Advisory Board
    • Employment
    • Biennial Report
    • Contact
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery
  • Our Research
    • Focus Areas
    • Publications Library
    • Presentations
    • Guided Pathways Workshops
    • Policy Resources
  • About Us
    • CCRC Staff
    • Research Affiliates
    • Advisory Board
    • Employment
    • Biennial Report
    • Contact
  • News
  • Community College FAQs
  • Blog
  • Pandemic Recovery