Assessing the Effect of Corequisite English Instruction Using a Randomized Controlled Trial

ERCT Criteria Breakdown

• Level 1 Criteria

  • C

    Class-level RCT

    • Randomisation was conducted at the individual student level, not at the class or school level, and the intervention is not a one-to-one tutoring exception.
    • "To investigate the causal impact of corequisite remediation on student outcomes, we conducted a student-level RCT." (p. 88)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To investigate the causal impact of corequisite remediation on student outcomes, we conducted a student-level RCT. All first-time-in-college students scoring within a predetermined range on the state's college readiness exam at each participating institution were recruited to participate in the study during orientation or initial advising sessions." (p. 88) 2) "Students who opted to participate were randomized to corequisite remediation or to the highest level standalone IRW DE course." (p. 88) 3) "The study focused on first-time-in-college students... Within this common eligibility range, students were recruited and randomized into either corequisite remediation or traditional DE." (p. 84) Detailed Analysis: The paper explicitly and repeatedly states that the unit of randomisation was the individual student ("we conducted a student-level RCT"), not the class or school. Students within the same eligibility pool at each college were individually assigned to either the corequisite (treatment) or standalone IRW (control) pathway. The ERCT standard requires randomisation at the class level or stronger (school level) to avoid contamination, unless the intervention is a one-to-one tutoring/personal-teaching intervention, in which case student-level randomisation is acceptable. This intervention is a course-placement reform (corequisite English course plus a developmental-education support component), not a personal one-to-one tutoring intervention, so the tutoring exception does not apply, even though two of the five colleges implement the DE support as individual tutoring rather than group instruction. The core treatment is which course sequence/section a student is placed into, and contamination risk from mixing treatment/control students in overlapping classes is a real concern the paper does not address by randomising at the class or school level. Criterion C is not met because randomisation occurred at the individual student level without a valid personal-tutoring exception.
  • E

    Exam-based Assessment

    • Outcomes are based on ordinary course grades (A-F) assigned by instructors in the courses being studied, not a standardised, widely recognised exam.
    • "To assess course passing, grades were recorded on a standard A-F basis in THECB data, and we defined passing as receiving a grade of C or better." (p. 90)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To assess course passing, grades were recorded on a standard A-F basis in THECB data, and we defined passing as receiving a grade of C or better. We focus on the completion of English Composition I because it is a key gateway course required for all academic degree programs..." (p. 90) 2) "Given that some stakeholders had expressed concerns that instructors may 'water down' content or artificially inflate grades in English Composition I under a corequisite model in which many or all students had lower test scores, we wanted to assess whether corequisites improved pass rates in courses that build upon the content of English Composition I." (pp. 90-91) 3) "Our key outcomes of interest for this paper included passing English Composition I by the end of the first and second academic year and one- and two-year persistence." (p. 90) Detailed Analysis: The primary outcomes in this study are instructor-assigned course grades (pass/fail at grade C or better) in English Composition I and II and a college reading course, drawn from administrative transcript records, plus credit accumulation and persistence. These are not scores from a standardised, widely recognised exam-based assessment (e.g., a state or national standardised test); they are ordinary course grades assigned by the instructors teaching the very courses being evaluated. The paper itself flags the concern that instructors could inflate or "water down" grades, which is precisely the bias problem the ERCT "E" criterion is designed to guard against by requiring a standardised exam external to the course. No standardised exam (comparable to EGRA/EGMA, a state assessment, or similar) is used as the outcome measure anywhere in the paper; only the TSIA placement exam is standardised, and that is used solely for eligibility/placement, not as an outcome measure. Criterion E is not met because the outcome measures are ordinary course grades, not a standardised exam-based assessment.
  • T

    Term Duration

    • The intervention runs a full semester and outcomes are tracked for one and two years after it begins, far exceeding one academic term.
    • "Our key outcomes of interest for this paper included passing English Composition I by the end of the first and second academic year and one- and two-year persistence." (p. 90)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We recruited and consented 1,276 newly enrolling students over three semesters (fall 2016, spring 2017, and fall 2017) from five Texas community colleges." (p. 79) 2) "The course ran for 16 weeks for all colleges except College E." (p. 85) 3) "Our key outcomes of interest for this paper included passing English Composition I by the end of the first and second academic year and one- and two-year persistence." (p. 90) 4) "To assess one- and two-year persistence, we examined the effect of corequisite remediation on enrollment one and three semesters after the semester in which the randomization and initial course enrollment took place." (p. 90) Detailed Analysis: The intervention itself (the corequisite course plus DE support) begins at the start of a semester and runs the length of that semester (a full academic term, 16 weeks for most colleges). Primary outcomes (passing English Composition I, credit accumulation, persistence) are measured at one year and two years after the semester in which the intervention began, which is far longer than the minimum one-term interval required by criterion T. Criterion T is met because the interval from intervention start to outcome measurement (one to two years) greatly exceeds one academic term.
  • D

    Documented Control Group

    • The paper documents the control group's composition, baseline covariates, and the specific standalone DE course it received in detail, including a formal covariate-balance table.
    • "Table 5 presents findings on the balance of predetermined covariates across treatment and control students... The means are quite similar for treatment and control students, consistent with successful randomization." (p. 92)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We refer to the set of students randomized to corequisite remediation as the 'treatment group' and those randomized to the stand-alone IRW course as the 'control group.'" (p. 88) 2) "Prior to the introduction of the intervention, students in our eligible score ranges would have been placed into the highest level of stand-alone DE courses, which consisted of an Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW) course that ranged from three to five credit hours depending on the college... the traditional DE course in which control students enrolled was the same across the participating colleges." (p. 84) 3) "Table 5. Covariate means by assignment status with mean equality test... Age, Black, Economic disadvantage, Female, Hispanic, Limited English, White, Part-time, Bachelor's intent, Associate's intent, Certificate intent, High school diploma, GED, First language English, First generation." (p. 92) 4) "Consent rates varied from 67% to 91% across colleges (Table 3)." (p. 89) Detailed Analysis: The paper provides extensive documentation of the control condition: it clearly describes what the control group received (the standalone Integrated Reading and Writing DE course, a mandated state-wide course of three to five credit hours), and it reports a detailed covariate-balance table (Table 5) comparing treatment and control students on 15 baseline demographic and academic characteristics, both for the full randomized sample and for enrolled students, along with sample sizes by college (Table 3). This level of detail allows readers to confirm the comparability of the control group and understand exactly what "business as usual" consisted of. Criterion D is met because the control group's characteristics, size, and the treatment they received are thoroughly documented.

• Level 2 Criteria

  • S

    School-level RCT

    • Randomisation occurred among individual students within each college, not among schools/colleges, so the stronger school-level criterion is not met.
    • "To investigate the causal impact of corequisite remediation on student outcomes, we conducted a student-level RCT." (p. 88)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "To investigate the causal impact of corequisite remediation on student outcomes, we conducted a student-level RCT." (p. 88) 2) "The experiment was conducted at five community colleges in Texas... All of the participating colleges volunteered to participate in the study and had established their own approaches to corequisite remediation prior to participation." (p. 84) 3) "Within this common eligibility range, students were recruited and randomized into either corequisite remediation or traditional DE." (p. 84) Detailed Analysis: Although the study spans five different community colleges, the colleges themselves were not the units of randomisation; they were simply the five sites where the study was conducted, each already using its own corequisite model. Within each college, eligible individual students were separately randomised to treatment or control. There is no quote anywhere in the paper indicating that entire colleges/schools were assigned to conditions; instead, all five colleges implemented both a treatment and a control arm simultaneously among their own students. Criterion S is not met because randomisation was at the student level within colleges, not at the school/college level.
  • I

    Independent Conduct

    • The corequisite models were designed and already in place at the colleges themselves; the study authors are independent academic researchers who evaluated pre-existing programs rather than their own intervention.
    • "All of the participating colleges volunteered to participate in the study and had established their own approaches to corequisite remediation prior to participation." (p. 84)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "All of the participating colleges volunteered to participate in the study and had established their own approaches to corequisite remediation prior to participation." (p. 84) 2) "Finally, it is important to note that instructors for corequisite sections were not chosen at random, and the selection process for identifying corequisite instructors varied across sites... In many cases, the corequisite model was primarily designed by a lead English faculty member." (p. 87) 3) "The authors would like to thank Christina LiCalsi, Rebecca Medway and Courtney Tanenbaum of American Institutes for Research (AIR) for their contributions to the implementation of the randomized controlled trial and the student surveys conducted as part of this research... We would also like to thank policymakers at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for their support in designing this study, providing data access..." (p. 97) 4) "Disclosure Statement: We do not have a financial interest in the research presented here." (p. 97) Detailed Analysis: The corequisite instructional models being tested were designed and implemented by the individual colleges themselves (typically led by college English faculty), prior to and independent of the study team's involvement. The study authors (RAND Corporation and university researchers) designed the evaluation and randomization but did not design the corequisite curricula or teach the courses. Outcome data came from an independent third-party administrative source (THECB state records) rather than from the colleges or instructors themselves, and the authors disclose no financial interest in the intervention. Survey/implementation support was further provided by a separate organization (AIR). Criterion I is met because the evaluation team is independent of the entities that designed and delivered the corequisite interventions, and outcome data were drawn from an independent administrative data source.
  • Y

    Year Duration

    • Outcomes are tracked for one and two full years after the intervention begins, well beyond 75% of an academic year.
    • "Randomization to treatment resulted in a 24.2 percentage point increase in English Composition I passing rates among enrollees by the end of the first academic year." (p. 93)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Our key outcomes of interest for this paper included passing English Composition I by the end of the first and second academic year and one- and two-year persistence." (p. 90) 2) "Randomization to treatment resulted in a 24.2 percentage point increase in English Composition I passing rates among enrollees by the end of the first academic year. Although some students in the control group caught up to their peers in the treatment group by the end of the second academic year, students assigned to the treatment group were still 18.4 percentage points more likely to have passed the course." (p. 93) 3) "To assess one- and two-year persistence, we examined the effect of corequisite remediation on enrollment one and three semesters after the semester in which the randomization and initial course enrollment took place." (p. 90) Detailed Analysis: Since criterion T is met (outcomes measured well beyond one term), the stronger Y criterion is evaluated directly: the study tracks student outcomes (course passing, credit accumulation, persistence) through a full academic year and again through a second academic year following the semester of randomisation, which comfortably exceeds the 75%-of-a-year threshold. Criterion Y is met because primary outcomes are measured one and two full academic years after the intervention began.
  • B

    Balanced Control Group

    • The additional instructional time in the corequisite (treatment) condition is integral to the very reform being tested (immediate college-course placement plus concurrent support versus sequential standalone DE), and total instructional time between the two arms is roughly comparable rather than grossly imbalanced.
    • "Under corequisite remediation, students skip the traditional DE course(s) and move immediately into a foundational college-level course, while also being required to enroll in concurrent DE support in that same semester." (p. 79)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "Under corequisite remediation, students skip the traditional DE course(s) and move immediately into a foundational college-level course, while also being required to enroll in concurrent DE support in that same semester." (p. 79) 2) "Instructional time for the college course was common across colleges (48 instructional hours), and the course ran for 16 weeks for all colleges except College E... College A's corequisite model required students to attend 48 hours of additional instruction in the DE support over the course of the semester... while the other colleges required just 16 hours of DE support." (p. 85) 3) "Prior to the introduction of the intervention, students in our eligible score ranges would have been placed into the highest level of stand-alone DE courses, which consisted of an Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW) course that ranged from three to five credit hours depending on the college." (p. 84) Detailed Analysis: Applying the criterion B decision procedure: the treatment condition does involve somewhat more total scheduled contact time in a given semester than the control condition (e.g., College A treatment students receive 48 hours of college course plus 48 hours of DE support = 96 hours, versus a 3-5 credit-hour IRW course for control students, roughly 48-80 hours over the same 16 weeks). However, this additional time is not a supplementary, separable resource bolted onto an otherwise identical curriculum; it is the explicit structural intervention being tested. The paper's entire research question is whether restructuring how DE support is delivered (concurrently with a college-level course, versus sequentially as a standalone prerequisite course) improves outcomes, and the specific hours of DE support (1 to 4 credit hours) are a defining, intentionally varied design feature of the corequisite models themselves, not an unplanned confound. Since the extra time is integral to the exact treatment variable under investigation (the structure and dosage of the corequisite support) and the control group's business-as-usual standalone DE course is clearly documented and of broadly comparable overall duration and credit weight, the control condition represents an appropriate business-as-usual comparator for isolating the effect of the corequisite structure. Criterion B is met because the additional instructional hours in the treatment condition are integral to the corequisite structure being tested, and the control group's standalone DE course is a comparable, well-documented business-as-usual alternative.

• Level 3 Criteria

  • R

    Reproduced

    • The paper explicitly identifies itself as the first experimental study of reading/writing corequisite remediation, and no independent replication of this specific RCT by a different research team is reported in the paper or found via subsequent literature.
    • "This is the first study to provide experimental evidence of the impact of corequisite remediation for students underprepared in reading and writing." (p. 78)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "This is the first study to provide experimental evidence of the impact of corequisite remediation for students underprepared in reading and writing." (p. 78) 2) "A second rigorous study of mathematics corequisites was conducted at the City University of New York (Logue et al., 2016)... Other studies examining corequisite remediation are emerging from states that have been early to scale corequisites. For example, Ran and Lin (2019) used a regression discontinuity approach to examine impacts using Tennessee postsecondary data." (p. 81) 3) "In a forthcoming companion paper, we estimate the costs of the five corequisite models examined here... (Cunha et al., forthcoming)." (p. 96) Detailed Analysis: The paper itself states it is the first experimental (RCT) study of corequisite remediation specifically in reading and writing. Related work cited (Cho et al., 2012 on ALP) is quasi-experimental rather than an RCT; Logue et al. (2016, 2019) is an RCT but of mathematics corequisites at a different institution (CUNY), a different subject area, and a different study design, so it does not replicate this specific reading/writing RCT; Ran and Lin (2019) uses a regression-discontinuity design in Tennessee, not an independent RCT replication of this study. The only related forthcoming work referenced in the paper (Cunha et al.) is a cost-benefit companion paper by the same author team analyzing the same five colleges' data, not an independent replication by a different team. A search of the post-publication citing literature (via Semantic Scholar/Crossref) confirms this pattern continues. The forthcoming Cunha et al. paper was published as "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Corequisite English Developmental Education: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Texas Community Colleges" (Cunha, Miller, Austin, Daugherty, and Martorell, Education Finance and Policy, 2025, DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00443), which states: "Our context is a previously published randomized controlled trial that estimated the effects of three different approaches to English corequisites implemented in five Texas community colleges" and "Miller et al. (2022) find that corequisites induced more students to pass the required college-level English course in all colleges but find no impact on persistence in college." This is a re-analysis of the same RCT sample by an overlapping author team, not an independent replication. Similarly, "The Impacts and Experiences of Corequisite Remediation for Latino Students" (Coca, Daugherty, and Miller, Journal of Higher Education, 2024, DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2024.2362556) explicitly states it draws on "a randomized control trial in five colleges," i.e., the same original sample, again analyzed by an overlapping author team (Daugherty and Miller). "Heterogeneity in the Effects of College Course Placement" (Daugherty, Gerber, Martorell, Miller, and Weisburst, Research in Higher Education, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s11162-021-09630-2) is likewise by the same core author team. Other citing studies of corequisite reform identified (e.g., Mokher and Park-Gaghan's series of papers on statewide scale-up in Texas, and Mokher, Park-Gaghan, and Hu's 2023 study of Florida's corequisite reform) are by different teams but use quasi-experimental or descriptive designs on different, larger administrative populations rather than independently replicating this specific five college RCT design. No independent RCT replicating this specific Texas reading/writing corequisite study by a different research team was found. Criterion R is not met because no independent replication of this specific study by a different research team has been published.
  • A

    All-subject Exams

    • Criterion E is not met, and the study only measures English/reading-related outcomes, not all main subjects.
    • "We examined the impacts of corequisite remediation on the following outcomes measured over one- and two-year intervals: passing a first college-level English Composition course; passing other college-level courses, including a second college-level English Composition course and a college-level reading course; total accumulation of college-level credits; and persistence." (p. 79)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "We examined the impacts of corequisite remediation on the following outcomes measured over one- and two-year intervals: passing a first college-level English Composition course; passing other college-level courses, including a second college-level English Composition course and a college-level reading course; total accumulation of college-level credits; and persistence." (p. 79) 2) "Given their popularity, our study focused on corequisite models built around English Composition I." (p. 82) Detailed Analysis: Per the criteria-specific instructions, if criterion E is not met, criterion A cannot be met. In addition, and independently, all outcomes examined in this study (English Composition I, English Composition II, and a college-level reading course) fall within a single subject domain (reading/writing/English); no mathematics, science, or other core subject outcomes were assessed, and no exception rationale for a specialized vocational focus is offered here (this is general developmental education, not a specialized vocational program). Criterion A is not met because criterion E is not met and only English/reading-related outcomes were assessed.
  • G

    Graduation Tracking

    • The study explicitly tracks outcomes only for one to two years, and no subsequent publication by the same authors tracking this cohort through graduation or degree completion was found.
    • "However, we will continue to examine longer term persistence and completion outcomes to determine whether the additional course momentum we observe translates into improved persistence and completion outcomes after two and three years." (p. 96)
    • Relevant Quotes: 1) "However, we will continue to examine longer term persistence and completion outcomes to determine whether the additional course momentum we observe translates into improved persistence and completion outcomes after two and three years." (p. 96) 2) "Future analysis will include an additional cohort of incoming college students that will help to increase statistical power." (p. 97) 3) "Students who had completed any academic credential, had transferred upward to a four-year college, or who remained enrolled at any postsecondary institution in the state were coded as having persisted." (p. 90) Detailed Analysis: The paper's outcomes stop at two years after randomisation (persistence and course passing), and the authors explicitly frame long-term completion/graduation tracking as future work not yet conducted ("we will continue to examine longer term persistence and completion outcomes"). Since criterion Y is met, this criterion could still be met if a follow-up publication reported graduation/degree-completion tracking for this cohort. A search for follow-up publications by the same author team (Trey Miller, Lindsay Daugherty, Paco Martorell, Russell Gerber) tracking this specific cohort was conducted via Semantic Scholar and Crossref citation records. Three related companion papers using the same RCT sample were found: (1) "A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Corequisite English Developmental Education: Evidence from a Randomized Controlled Trial in Texas Community Colleges" (Cunha, Miller, Austin, Daugherty, and Martorell, Education Finance and Policy, 2025, DOI: 10.1162/edfp_a_00443), which analyzes implementation costs and explicitly relies on the original paper's short-term persistence finding ("Miller et al. (2022) ... find no impact on persistence in college") rather than reporting any new, longer-term follow-up data; (2) "The Impacts and Experiences of Corequisite Remediation for Latino Students" (Coca, Daugherty, and Miller, Journal of Higher Education, 2024, DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2024.2362556), whose abstract states outcomes limited to "college- level English course completion" and qualitative student experience, with no graduation or degree- completion tracking; and (3) "Heterogeneity in the Effects of College Course Placement" (Daugherty, Gerber, Martorell, Miller, and Weisburst, Research in Higher Education, 2021, DOI: 10.1007/s11162-021-09630-2), which examines heterogeneous short-term placement effects rather than long-term/graduation outcomes. No publication reporting tracking of this cohort through graduation or degree completion was identified. Criterion G is not met because tracking stops at two years with no reported graduation/degree completion follow-up found in the paper or in subsequent literature by the same authors.
  • P

    Pre-Registered

    • No statement of pre-registration, registry ID, or pre-registration date is found anywhere in the paper, and no registry record was located via additional search.
    • Relevant Quotes: No quotes were found anywhere in the paper (main text, methods, acknowledgments, funding, or disclosure sections) referencing a study registry (e.g., a registered protocol, ClinicalTrials.gov- style ID, AEA RCT Registry, SREE Registry for Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies, or OSF pre-registration) or any date of pre-registration. Detailed Analysis: The paper describes IES grant funding (R305H170085, R305N170003, R305H150094) and a disclosure statement, but neither the methods section, the funding section, nor the acknowledgments mention a pre-registered protocol, hypotheses, or analysis plan published before data collection began (which started with recruitment in fall 2016). No registry link or ID is provided. An additional internet search for a registered protocol matching this study (by title, authors, and IES grant numbers) did not locate any entry in a public trial registry; no evidence of pre-registration could be found. Criterion P is not met because no evidence of pre-registration was found in the paper or via further search.