View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

What Does Organizational Culture Tell Us about Developmental Education Reform? Corequisite Implementation in Texas

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: What Does Organizational Culture Tell Us about Developmental Education Reform? Corequisite Implementation in Texas
Language: English
Authors: Holly N. Henning (ORCID 0000-0001-8640-2542), Morgan M. Danyi (ORCID 0000-0002-7120-4970), Toby J. Park-Gaghan (ORCID 0000-0001-8788-7369), Christine G. Mokher (ORCID 0000-0001-6060-6766)
Source: Innovative Higher Education. 2025 50(6):2193-2213.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305A210319
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Postsecondary Education
Higher Education
Descriptors: Organizational Culture, Educational Change, Developmental Studies Programs, Postsecondary Education, Institutional Role, Required Courses, Learning Strategies, Colleges, Student Subcultures, Organizational Change, Institutional Characteristics, Differences
DOI: 10.1007/s10755-025-09787-z
ISSN: 0742-5627
1573-1758
Abstract: A continuous topic of discussion in postsecondary success contexts is how institutions can assist students who need developmental education support. As part of an ongoing move away from lengthy developmental course sequences that delay students' time-to-degree completion, corequisite education models allow students to enroll in developmental courses in the same semester as college level courses. Under HB 2223 passed in 2017, Texas mandated all public postsecondary institutions to offer corequisite education as the main form of developmental education by 2021. This research study focuses on the organizational cultures and subcultures of seven institutions from different economic and geographic regions during the four-year policy implementation in Texas using qualitative data. Based on the theoretical lenses of Birnbaum's organizational cultures and Hatch's organizational subcultures, findings from this multi-site case study indicate that one institution represented an anarchical culture, three demonstrated bureaucratic cultures, and the final three showed collegial cultures. Organizational subcultures included mostly enhancing types with one institution revealing a counterculture and another showing an orthogonal subculture. Institutional practices, like number of credit hours and course delivery, also differed during implementation according to institutional profiles and characteristics.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1496751
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGuzVbUI8BDfqJ9wiEZnKGXAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJurTa4tKW-oennHhgIBEICBm76GXQ8iSQxLLeqHVpQMAfnIHHwnUolffrx8kvNJ-qOaMT2S5f9bVPlHPykQF3mFW7u9paf1okpjKHPoERJyye1_Q58EZ2Rfc2Lzy6kzxZBoF74ilE8NFMkwciG9909Jlo9SPFQJF7DlSUww2fH9zvxWm9hufEf8uMoya3GqkckLhT5xmPPBbKn1O6oPBvMFv86cug7exDfT5HXe
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189417202;ihe01dec.25;2025Nov24.01:10;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189417202-1">What Does Organizational Culture Tell Us About Developmental Education Reform? Corequisite Implementation in Texas </title> <p>A continuous topic of discussion in postsecondary success contexts is how institutions can assist students who need developmental education support. As part of an ongoing move away from lengthy developmental course sequences that delay students' time-to-degree completion, corequisite education models allow students to enroll in developmental courses in the same semester as college level courses. Under HB 2223 passed in 2017, Texas mandated all public postsecondary institutions to offer corequisite education as the main form of developmental education by 2021. This research study focuses on the organizational cultures and subcultures of seven institutions from different economic and geographic regions during the four-year policy implementation in Texas using qualitative data. Based on the theoretical lenses of Birnbaum's organizational cultures and Hatch's organizational subcultures, findings from this multi-site case study indicate that one institution represented an anarchical culture, three demonstrated bureaucratic cultures, and the final three showed collegial cultures. Organizational subcultures included mostly enhancing types with one institution revealing a counterculture and another showing an orthogonal subculture. Institutional practices, like number of credit hours and course delivery, also differed during implementation according to institutional profiles and characteristics.</p> <p>Keywords: Developmental education; Policy implementation; Corequisite reform; Organizational culture; Organizational subcultures; Student success</p> <p>Each year, many college students across the country identified as academically underprepared enroll in developmental education (DE) courses in Integrated Reading and Writing (IRW) and math. Major structural barriers contribute to these students' required enrollment and related retention issues in DE courses. Among these barriers are inequities in academic preparation for college coursework in high school, inaccurate course placement due to college placement exams, and challenges with institutions' corequisite offerings in course content and structure (Jaggars & Bickerstaff, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]). Most students who enroll in these courses do not complete them, let alone the college-level course (Clotfelter et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref3">11</reflink>]; Scott-Clayton & Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]). The move away from traditional standalone sequential DE courses toward more efficient and targeted approaches to DE has launched the corequisite education model at the forefront of DE reform. A major benefit of the corequisite model and its growing success is that students can enroll in the DE course and the college-level course in the same semester, decreasing the time spent pursuing remediation (Edgecombe, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref5">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>In 2017, Texas passed HB 2223 requiring corequisite DE in all public postsecondary institutions. The first state to offer this kind of DE at scale, Texas allowed institutions to choose how to implement corequisites, giving general guidance through workshops, meetings, and online resources. Under the policy, institutions could select among different course structures, credit hour intensities, and delivery methods, among other aspects of corequisite implementation. Course structures consisted of non-course-based options (NCBOs), typically taught in labs with less instruction, or course-based options taught by one or more instructors usually in a classroom; these could be concurrent with the college-level course or sequential in the same term. Credit hour intensities could similarly range from zero or one credit hour to more, as institutions saw fit. Finally, delivery options institutions could select from were online synchronous or asynchronous courses (which became essential during the pandemic), face-to-face options, or hybrid modalities that incorporated some combination of online and face-to-face instruction.</p> <p>While various factors contribute to decision-making during times of change, one aspect that shapes institutions' responses when given choices, such as those during the state policy implementation, is organizational culture. Defined as values, assumptions, and beliefs, organizational culture helps "guide behavior in a social system" (Bess & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>], p. 363). Moreover, a strong organizational culture is known to enhance an organization's effectiveness (Tierney, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]). Notably, individual and localized changes in corequisite classrooms may support improved corequisite course offerings and outcomes. Yet, examining the systemic nature of organizations' cultures for how they both hinder and harm corequisite implementation shifts the conversation from individual deficits toward a much-needed broader perspective that prioritizes student success at a structural level.</p> <p>At present, little information exists about the convergence of organizational culture and policy implementation, especially in conjunction with DE reform. The purpose of this study is therefore to explore the organizational cultures of higher education institutions amidst the implementation of a statewide corequisite mandate and practices that ensued given the context of institution-specific cultures. Understanding how institutions' cultures played a role in their decisions during policy implementation offers valuable insight into the context surrounding important outcomes. Thus, we posit the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How are public postsecondary institutions in Texas characterized through the lens of institutional culture during a state-mandated scale-up of corequisite education?</item> <p></p> <item> What similarities and differences existed in these institutions' practices considering their institutional cultures while implementing the scale-up of corequisite education?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0189417202-2">Literature Review</hd> <p>In this section, we provide a brief review of the literature as it relates to the purpose and evolution of DE in higher education. We also explain the shift toward corequisite education as part of a larger DE reform movement to improve student outcomes given the challenges experienced with initial DE models. This includes information about the four-year policy implementation in Texas following HB 2223 where lawmakers mandated the 100% scaleup to corequisites as the main form of DE. The review concludes with a discussion about the role of organizational culture during change initiatives, as is the case during policy implementation, before exploring the conceptual framework through which we viewed this study.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-3">Challenges with Traditional DE Models</hd> <p>Over the course of the last few decades, DE has evolved considerably in the context of U.S. higher education (Bailey, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref8">4</reflink>]). As college enrollment and open access institutions have increased in scope and scale, the need for student remediation in subject areas like English, reading, and math has also grown. Under the traditional model of DE that emerged, students must take a developmental, formerly known as remedial, course for one or more semesters prior to their enrollment in the associated college-level course (Edgecombe, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref9">15</reflink>]). Initially designed to benefit college student outcomes such as retention and graduation rates, these courses did not always meet individuals' or institutions' anticipated goals (Jaggars & Stacey, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]). Unintended negative consequences under traditional DE models created cause for concern. A meta-analysis of regression discontinuity studies on the effects of DE found that students who scored just below the college-ready cutoff and were placed in DE dealt with negative outcomes related to passing college-level courses, credit accumulation, and degree completion relative to similar students placed directly into college level courses (Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref11">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>In recent years, researchers and policymakers have questioned this traditional model of DE due to poor outcomes for incoming college students who are placed in DE coursework. Numerous drawbacks exist as students are intended to progress through lengthy remedial course sequences before reaching credit-bearing coursework that fulfills degree requirements in the same subject area. Not only does this added time to degree completion cost institutions and students billions of dollars each year (Ganga et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Scott-Clayton et al., 2014), but the passage rates of individuals placed in traditional DE courses are quite low, signaling their ineffectiveness at meeting some students' needs (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]; Saxon & Martirosyan, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]). Even for students who complete their first DE course, those who start at the bottom of DE course sequences have a much lower chance of pursuing another DE course and thus, advancing forward in their academic studies (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-4">Shift Toward Corequisite Education and State Implementation</hd> <p>Given the shortcomings of traditional models, there has been a shift toward corequisite education as the main form of DE due to improved outcomes and practices. Corequisite education allows students to take the developmental, or support course, in the same semester as the college level course in the related subject area, though variations in this may differ somewhat by state. Under this approach, students no longer have to enroll in extended developmental course sequences and may more quickly progress through DE. As a result, research on corequisite education has shown that students who participate in this form of DE in comparison to standard DE models are more likely to complete their first-year math or English courses (Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]; Denley, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; Logue et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref19">26</reflink>]; Ran & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref20">33</reflink>]). For students who are more often placed in DE coursework, particularly students of color, corequisite outcomes are especially promising for reducing inequities based on race and ethnicity (Park-Gaghan et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>Compelling evidence demonstrates that the introduction of corequisite courses in Texas specifically has already yielded significant improvements in student success, particularly in the short term. For example, a randomized controlled trial including five Texas community colleges offering (IRW) revealed a noteworthy increase in the likelihood of completing a college-level English course within the first two years of college (Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref22">26</reflink>]). Positive results have also been found in Texas math outcomes due to corequisite implementation. Meiselman and Schudde ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]) compared Texas students in traditional developmental math across 18 colleges before the statewide expansion of corequisites. This study found significant positive effects of corequisites on the completion of college-level courses, with corequisite students also undertaking fewer developmental credits. Finally, Austin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]) utilized regression discontinuity to disentangle the effects of accelerated course placement and concurrent academic support, drawing data from before and during the statewide corequisite reform implementation. Accelerated course placement correlated with an increase in passing college-level math that, when coupled with concurrent developmental support, rose even more. Ultimately, students on the verge of college readiness might derive more benefits from corequisites than from the complete removal of developmental education.</p> <p>Reforming developmental education also holds promise for reducing achievement gaps among systemically minoritized student groups. Previous research on Florida's developmental education reform has indicated greater gains in first-year coursetaking and credit accumulation for Black and Latinx students compared to their white counterparts (Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref25">27</reflink>]). These differential gains translated into significant cost savings in tuition, with Black students experiencing savings two to four times greater than white students (Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref26">29</reflink>]). Similar gains have also been found in Texas, again contributing to equitable outcomes based on corequisite implementation. Benefits associated with corequisites in gateway course completion outcomes have tended to be more pronounced for Latinx students than those from non-Latinx backgrounds (Coca et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]). Additionally, Latinx students in corequisites have reported feeling less academically overwhelmed and bored compared to their counterparts in traditional developmental courses (Coca et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]), further enhancing the move toward corequisites.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-5">Organizational Culture and Change amidst DE Reform</hd> <p>Most of the previous studies, including our own work, examine student and institutional outcomes during DE reform efforts to determine the effectiveness of corequisite education. While they provide critical insight into student and institutional progress, organizational culture is yet another means through which institutions and policymakers can explore corequisite implementation and further gauge how and why policies like HB 2223 are successful. Organizational culture not only informs institutional choices and behavior, but it is comprised of three layers that are not fully visible upon observation (Schein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref29">35</reflink>]). These deeply rooted aspects of culture are typically implicit and rarely questioned by members within the organization, making them difficult to change (Bess & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>Without accounting for individual institutional cultures, implementing large-scale institutional change is often challenging given the assumption that change strategies are enacted similarly in all contexts (Kezar & Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref31">21</reflink>]). Change that is successful at one institution may not be at another when considering the same policy, like HB 2223, as institutional cultural norms and processes may go unrecognized at the outset of change initiatives like policy implementation. Past scholarly work at the intersection of more general student success outcomes and organizational culture indicates the kinds of institutional cultures that assist with improving these types of initiatives. Creating a "supportive organizational culture," for example, is essential for ensuring institutions enhance change and meet the needs of diverse students (Barnett & Kopko, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref32">6</reflink>], p. 188).</p> <p>Despite organizational culture's role in the change process to support student success, minimal research on any kind of DE, particularly corequisite education, has focused on organizational culture as the lens through which DE initiatives have been implemented. Where studied, evidence shows that data and technology cultures are helpful for changing the way developmental coursework is designed and implemented (Barnett & Kopko, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]; Brower et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref34">9</reflink>]; Natow et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref35">30</reflink>]). As for corequisite remediation, Daugherty et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]) found that a culture allowing for flexibility and innovation is important to the implementation of corequisite education, and institutions that do not eschew these characteristics are more likely to struggle to facilitate the change required. Further, corequisite implementation involves a culture of collaboration with multiple stakeholders where buy-in is critical (Daugherty et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-6">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p>In this section we further discuss organizational culture and key typologies that have evolved to describe institutions' ways of behaving as the foundation of our conceptual framework. Because organizational culture explains how institutions adapt to change policies and make decisions to achieve their goals (Bess & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]; Kezar & Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]), this study is primarily based on two notable organizational culture typologies in the higher education literature. Incorporating multiple theoretical frameworks to study organizational culture offers the ability to explore different aspects of a case in qualitative research (Anfara & Mertz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]). Of the multiple scholars who have studied organizational culture in this context, we selected Birnbaum's typology of postsecondary organizational cultures and Hatch's work on organizational subcultures to explore corequisite implementation in Texas. Birnbaum's work addresses an organization's primary—or dominant—culture, which we expected to play a larger role in shaping corequisite implementation. The purpose for using Hatch's subcultures was to create analytic depth and understanding of individual organizations, being careful not to broadbrush institutions and bear in mind the contextual nuance that often exists within organizational systems.</p> <p>One of the first frameworks for examining culture, Birnbaum ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref42">8</reflink>]) proposed four postsecondary institution organizational cultures: anarchical, bureaucratic, collegial, and political. The <emph>anarchical</emph> model suggests that institutional goals are unclear or in conflict with one another, there is fluid participation in decision-making, and technological transformation processes are not clear. The <emph>bureaucratic</emph> model, on the other hand, involves formal rules for efficiency, behavior based on specific roles, and rational decision-making devoid of conflict or ambiguity (Birnbaum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref43">8</reflink>]). The <emph>collegial</emph> model includes a lack of hierarchy, decisions that are gained through consensus, and tradition as key to behavior; it is unlike the <emph>political</emph> model in which negotiations and bargaining occur in exchange for something (Birnbaum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref44">8</reflink>]).</p> <p>To acknowledge that institutions are complex organizations and address nuances among university cultures, we also utilized Hatch's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>]) organizational subcultures. According to Hatch ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]), the three organizational subcultures are the enhancing, counterculture, and orthogonal subculture. The <emph>enhancing</emph> subculture supports the primary values of the dominant culture, while the <emph>counterculture</emph> has values that are in opposition to the dominant culture; the <emph>orthogonal</emph> subculture occurs separately from the dominant culture with little interaction between the two (Hatch, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref47">18</reflink>]). In instances where subcultures are not in alignment with dominant cultures, organizational effectiveness is hindered (Bess & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]). The use of these subcultures therefore helped provide greater depth of understanding and garner what happened below the surface of the dominant organizational culture. The following section outlines the methods and methodology for examining organizational culture during the Texas DE reform of corequisite implementation, beginning with the type of study and participants, data sources and analysis, and concluding with how we ensured trustworthiness.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189417202-8">Participants and Study Sample</hd> <p>Prior to beginning our research, we sought IRB approval through the institution conducting the study and secured permission to move forward. We then began a qualitative multi-site case study (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref49">40</reflink>]) at seven institutions in Texas as part of a larger mixed methods research study addressing corequisite implementation following HB 2223. Because a case study includes examining a phenomenon that cannot be separated from its context (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref50">40</reflink>]), this type of method helped us understand the organizational cultures within each institution during policy implementation while also comparing across institutions from different economic and geographic regions in Texas.</p> <p>The study sample included participants, in this case, institutions, using a form of purposive sampling known as maximum variation sampling, which involves selecting cases that are distinct to explore the diversity of cases (Ary et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>]). This type of sampling allowed for key differences among regions and institutions based on type, size, and location with the idea of finding different organizational cultures. The final sample included seven institutions to represent seven different economic and geographic regions in Texas, varying according to types of students served, missions, and their funding (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board [THECB], [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref52">37</reflink>]). It was comprised of Institutions A – G (pseudonyms used for this study), which we categorized using both Carnegie and USDA classifications; there were four urban, three rural; four were four-year, three were two-year; and two were large, two were small, and three were midsize. We recruited individuals by exploring institutional and departmental websites to determine who was responsible for implementing corequisites. We then called these individuals who confirmed their roles (or led us to the appropriate administrators or faculty who were responsible), also requesting that they bring in others who were involved in corequisite implementation and courses. We met with a total of 50 department chairs and faculty members, including 22 from IRW or English and 28 from math subject areas.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-9">Data Collection</hd> <p>Data collection for this study began in Fall 2022 and continued throughout Spring 2023. Methods of data collection included both focus groups and interviews, which we conducted through virtual site visits over Zoom during both semesters. While focus groups were more common and we gathered most of our data that way, we engaged in some one-on-one interviews with faculty in the case where only one faculty member attended the meeting. As such, focus groups and interviews included the same questions to maintain consistency. The semi-structured nature of these meetings allowed us to ask questions pertaining to how institutions implemented the policy and gauge where similarities and differences existed among institutions. As organizational culture and subculture, based on the conceptual framework, involve institutions' behavior and decisions that reflect assumptions and ways of being (Bess & Dee, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref53">7</reflink>]), many of our focus group and interview questions first asked what kinds of corequisites were offered to gather a foundational understanding of their institutions, personnel, and course offerings. We then focused on the ways that institutions made decisions about implementation, and why they did so. Sample questions included "How did your department/college decide what corequisite models to implement?" and "What opportunities were there for open discussion, dialogue, and deliberation about scaling up corequisite instruction?".</p> <p>During data collection most focus groups were comprised of approximately two to five individuals with the occasional focus group containing more participants as available at the institution, and focus groups and interviews lasted approximately 60—90 min each. Altogether, we met with numerous participant groups across the seven institutions. At the same time as focus groups and interviews were conducted, we also collected advising flowcharts and documents that conveyed course descriptions and academic and curricular pathways students could take at their institutions. These additional documents helped us better understand course offerings and sequences and served as examples of organizational artifacts relevant to the case study's organizational culture focus (Schein, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref54">35</reflink>]). Along the way, we also completed memos and institutional summaries following focus groups and interviews to assist with data distillation given the large amount of information gathered during that year (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref55">25</reflink>]). At the end of data collection, we crafted a large data matrix listing each institution and compiled pertinent data to the overarching study which was further referenced for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-10">Data Analysis</hd> <p>As is typical in qualitative research, data analysis occurred iteratively with data collection. The primary tool used for data analysis was Dedoose, a computer assisted qualitative data analysis software. Upon completion of each focus group or interview, transcripts were transcribed by a professional transcription provider and then added to Dedoose for coding. From there, we conducted data analysis in phases based on a comprehensive coding framework utilized in a previous multi-year DE initiative for the project-at-large. During open coding, we collaboratively refined the framework, removing and modifying a priori codes and definitions and adding new codes and definitions (Yin, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref56">40</reflink>]). Sample codes we applied included "examples of deliberation and discussion," "evidence of data culture," and "collaboration between advisors and faculty" to help determine types of behavior and decision-making indicative of certain cultures and subcultures during implementation. Data from this coding process was examined in conjunction with a thematic analysis of memos, summaries, flowcharts, and Dedoose excerpts. This helped determine institutional organizational culture and subculture typologies based on their theoretical definitions. For example, where institutions described fluid participation in decision-making, this was used as an indication of a bureaucratic culture, while decisions based on consensus served as examples of a collegial culture. Ultimately, we created consolidated institutional culture and subculture profiles while identifying institutional similarities and differences in corequisite implementation practices. Altogether, our analytic process, rooted in various strategies, aligned with the multi-site case study methodology by examining several data sources across institutions. Further interviewing different stakeholders allowed us to triangulate findings from various perspectives to identify consistent patterns and themes.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-11">Positionality</hd> <p>Researcher positionality in qualitative research, including case studies such as this one, helps identify potential biases and the ways in which participant data is interpreted and understood from the researchers' perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]). For this study, researchers engaged in an overall constructivist approach, indicating that we view the data and analysis as indistinct from the social context of the case, also aligning with the study's case study methodology. The lead researcher, a current doctoral candidate, worked for a decade as an advisor with students who were often placed in DE, creating a passion and appreciation for DE reform and prompting her to join this research study. The second researcher, a doctoral student, while new to the topic of DE, asked critical questions upon joining the study, bringing in a fresh perspective to the data. The final researchers involved in the study, both professors of education, have long researched DE reform, offering expertise in working with state policymakers and institutions to improve the state of DE on a statewide and even national scale. In this way, our unique positionalities merged to offer well-rounded analysis, leadership, and support during this study. These positionalities were also supported by our epistemological assumptions of the co-creation of knowledge and shaped the ways we interacted with participants to inform our findings with the goal of enhancing DE.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-12">Trustworthiness</hd> <p>Because it is essential in qualitative research, we used a variety of means to ensure trustworthiness, or rigor of the research, throughout the data collection and analysis processes (Ary et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref58">2</reflink>]). Primarily, we implemented thick and rich descriptions in summary templates following each focus group to thoroughly explain the institution's decision-makers and other actors, implementation processes, forms of internal and external collaboration, and other relevant information about how and why the institution scaled up corequisites in terms of structure, intensity, and credit hours. Using different methods and data sources further served to triangulate data gathered in focus groups and interviews with documents like advising flowcharts. In some instances, we also used member checking to verify our understanding of content gathered during data collection, especially when focus group and interview data conflicted with flowchart and web resources. At one institution, for example, one researcher conducted an additional interview with a faculty administrator to confirm we correctly understood course offerings and processes as they were still unclear following an initial focus group. Where possible, however, email follow-ups served to confirm or clarify information.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-13">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189417202-14">Institutional Profiles and Types</hd> <p>Table 1 presents findings according to institutional culture, subculture, institution type (two-year or four-year), institution size (small, midsize, or large), and institution location (rural or urban). Results from data analysis revealed that institutions represented three of the four Birnbaum ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref59">8</reflink>]) dominant culture types, with one institution emerging as anarchical, three bureaucratic, and three collegial. Notably, we did not categorize any institution as political, though Institution D appeared to express some of these tendencies given its orthogonal subculture. As for Hatch's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref60">18</reflink>]) three subculture types, we classified one institution as countercultural given its defiance of the dominant culture, one as orthogonal due to its operation alongside the dominant culture, and the rest as enhancing given their general affinity for supporting the dominant culture.</p> <p>Table 1 Institutional Profiles and Cultures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Institution</p></th><th align="left"><p>Culture</p></th><th align="left"><p>Subculture</p></th><th align="left"><p>Type</p></th><th align="left"><p>Size</p></th><th align="left"><p>Location</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>A</p></td><td align="left"><p>Anarchical</p></td><td align="left"><p>Counterculture</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>B</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bureaucratic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Two-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Large</p></td><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>C</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collegial</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Two-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rural</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>D</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collegial</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthogonal</p></td><td align="left"><p>Two-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Small</p></td><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>E</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bureaucratic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Midsize</p></td><td align="left"><p>Urban</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>F</p></td><td align="left"><p>Collegial</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Midsize</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rural</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>G</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bureaucratic</p></td><td align="left"><p>Enhancing</p></td><td align="left"><p>Four-Year</p></td><td align="left"><p>Midsize</p></td><td align="left"><p>Rural</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Analysis according to institution type, size, and location revealed additional findings based on the dominant culture. The primary cultures of two-year institutions were bureaucratic and collegial, with four-year institutions representing anarchical, bureaucratic, and collegial cultures. As for institution size, large institutions presented anarchical and bureaucratic organizations, while small represented only collegial cultures. Interestingly, midsized institutions included both bureaucratic and collegial types. Finally, based on institutions' locations in urban or rural settings, urban institutions demonstrated anarchical, bureaucratic, and collegial dominant cultures, while rural showed bureaucratic in one case and collegial in the other two.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-15">Institutional Practices</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189417202-16">Opposite Ends of the Organizational Spectrum</hd> <p>While we classified institutions according to culture and subculture, what was more important to understand and explore were their institutional practices during the corequisite implementation given their institution-specific cultures. At Institution G, one bureaucratic institution with an enhancing subculture, corequisite offerings demonstrated efficiency, clarity, rational decision-making processes, and individuals adhering to their specific institutional roles. For example, the institution identified specific instructors to design corequisites given their skills and backgrounds, and decisions were made based on student needs and the legislation. Further, the institution discussed student success rates and changes to corequisites to address needs based on a data culture rather than staff changes or personal preferences.</p> <p>Interestingly, this institution offered all corequisites face-to-face in both English and math based on the institutions' rurality and students' difficulty gaining access to online resources. One English faculty member stated, "I think it goes back to culturally in our department going back to when I first came to [Institution G]." She added that some of the factors underlying their decision to offer only in person options included students' "access to the internet, the issue of building community, the issue of having money to be able to buy a computer or having access to a computer at home, that sort of thing." Similarly, the math department representative explained that during COVID, "We had to try to do it [offering corequisites] online and it was just a complete crash and burn...And so I'm pretty sure that played into the decision. Given its enhancing subculture, there was alignment between institutional goals and employees involved in the corequisite scale-up.</p> <p>On the opposite end of the spectrum was Institution A, demonstrating anarchy and a counterculture. Individuals who were responsible for corequisite decision-making frequently changed (fluid participation), and the goals and design of the corequisite scale-up were also unclear and in conflict with previous initiatives. This was evident as leaders within an academic department who were initially tasked with corequisites were largely responsible for determining the content and structures of corequisites at the campus and formed numerous partnerships with other subject area departments to offer unique content. One longstanding IRW faculty member stated that when the mandate first came down, "we had a lot of pairings" with corequisites, including sociology, history, and government, claiming that they "were trying to coreq everything." She emphasized, "our college went nuts."</p> <p>After the legislation and numerous staff and organizational changes, department leaders were tasked with overhauling corequisites and eliminating recently established partnerships to meet new institutional leaders' different corequisite goals. The Director of IRW said that their Dean called for a reorganization, changing the nature and mission of their department, and their department "lost our departmental status." This forced the department to undo much of their previous corequisite designs, as they "eliminated almost all of the [corequisite] pairs that were in other subject areas [outside of English]." This tension resulted in leaders at the departmental level trying to regain control of decision-making and hold onto a few outside [corequisite] partnerships, evidence of a counterculture. Further evidence of a counterculture appeared when the Director of IRW attempted to reclaim ownership of corequisite registrations, creating a lengthy and counterproductive corequisite registration form, causing students to lose out on seats in classes and return for more course advising.</p> <p>A comparison of these two organizational culture and subculture extremes revealed additional examples of how they appeared in corequisite implementation practices. Important to note are the differences that emerged in terms of corequisite course offerings based on credit hours, delivery methods, modalities, and pairings. Institution G, the bureaucratic institution with an enhancing subculture, offered only one three-hour corequisite course option for all students at the institution for both IRW and math. Additionally, the institution offered its singular corequisite option in-person with no alternative modalities. In contrast, Institution A, the anarchical institution with a counterculture, offered so many course options for both English and math students that it became difficult to determine how many it presently offered. It delivered corequisites in two, three, and four credit hours; online, face-to-face, and hybrid; and in a variety of semester-length options from eight weeks to sixteen weeks.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-17">Enhancing Bureaucracy</hd> <p>Although there were no additional anarchical institutional types, two other schools—Institution B and Institution E—presented as bureaucratic and enhancing. Institution B offered only one three-hour, 16-week corequisite course in English for all students with an NCBO that was only meant to serve a small number of students. In math, they offered a one-hour and three-hour corequisite depending on their math pathway and were considering offering these classes only face-to-face in the future, streamlining their corequisites. Not only were English instructors supposed to attend a mandatory corequisite training before school starts each year, but in math, the department shared they implemented role playing as a form of training. When asked more about trainings, the math faculty member expressed, "we would do training for each course" because the department "had already figured out what worked" due to previous work before the corequisite mandate with Complete College America and other outside organizations of support. These earlier steps and previous experience with corequisites helped to further streamline their actions during the formal corequisite implementation.</p> <p>As much as possible, this same bureaucratic and enhancing institution attempted to have one instructor for the corequisite and college level courses, and an English department representative explained they believed having the "same instructor is the gold standard," demonstrating the desire for "alignment" and efficiency and consistency. This was especially evident in math where they shared pre-built LMS shells with course instructors so the content and materials would be the same across the board. Like Institution G, data culture heavily informed the practices at this similar bureaucratic and enhancing school. They further utilized faculty surveys and lessons from Complete College America to implement their corequisites.</p> <p>Institution E, the last of the three bureaucratic and enhancing institutions, also reflected these kinds of practices. With minimal corequisite options in both English and math, they too strived to provide one instructor for the college-level and corequisite courses. Moreover, math used the same textbook across courses, with English sometimes doing the same. In line with continuous improvement and enhancement, Institution E's English corequisites were in a time of transition, having piloted different corequisite options over time to follow the legislation in the best way possible. One faculty member noted:So you've really caught us in a time of transition, like with our NCBO and with this rewrite of our [English corequisite]. And so we're always working on how can we improve this class, how can we help our students. But it's our [English corequisite that] has been our focus, but that's really the focus of the law. When you read that law that's what it's about, is the course is made to help those students pass that online on-level class.</p> <p>While the institutions represented the extremes of institutional practices—bureaucracy and anarchy—based on cultures and subcultures, other institutions did not.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-18">The Collegial Middle</hd> <p>Indeed, the three remaining institutions' practices were somewhere in the middle in terms of what they offered and how they behaved during corequisite implementation. Institutions C, D, and F were much more collegial in their cultures, and for the most part, they demonstrated practices instituted as a team with a minimal or mostly flat hierarchy. At Institution F, for example, the director of developmental English explained:We have a lot of people that bring a lot of expertise, and we have a very horizontal leadership. We work really collaboratively together, and collaboration is kind of our key in between all of our departments with all of our instructors, or very collegial, very communicative, very collaborative. Everybody has expertise that they're bringing.</p> <p>In this way, no one person was responsible for decision-making, but rather corequisite implementation was a combined effort. As such, the department would reach out to other departments like advising, the registrar's office, or the writing center to organize services for their students. Further, they worked as a team to meet with and help facilitate student corequisite course placement. At summer orientations, each instructor or faculty member, with the director, would meet with individual students to discuss their course options for about 30 to 45 min. Because of their collegial culture, the institution (in both English and math) also implemented multiple measures course placement rather than just the TSIA test as its single, uniform placement measure. This allowed students to be involved in the decision-making process through course placement conversations. In their one-on-one meetings with students, they would work alongside incoming corequisite students to enroll in the corequisite course they felt most appropriately met their knowledge and skill levels.</p> <p>Although we were unable to meet with the mathematics department at Institution C, this collegial and enhancing school's English department displayed a culture of collegiality as well. They did not offer as many corequisite course options as Institution F that also presented as collegial and enhancing, but they did offer different modalities to meet the needs of students from various populations. In fact, the corequisite structures they offered were similar to what they previously employed years before the mandate went into effect and in accordance with the aspect of tradition in collegial cultures. When asked about the content of corequisites at their institution, the faculty director also expressed that while he structured the corequisites, he would not take credit for the work the instructors had put in to create the coursework, revealing a more shared rather than hierarchical approach to corequisite implementation. He further noted that where two instructors might teach a course together, he stressed collaboration and communication through certain guidelines he hoped they would consider.</p> <p>The final of the three collegial institutions, Institution D, also engaged in similar collegial practices in that instructors worked together and with other departments, including advising, to assist with corequisite placement. This was also the only institution in our sample where instructors served as faculty advisors to help professional advisors given the small scale of the school. One instructor stated, "We're all faculty advisors. So we have to have a working knowledge of where the student is as far as like their TSI scores..." Another explained, "We have an advising department...But we also—it's all hands on deck. You know, they're only so—they only have so much staff. So when it's crunch time, we all have to take a lead and do what we have to do." Both math and English instructors also noted attending advising trainings to understand how to carry out advising functions appropriately when talking to corequisite students. This aspect of teamwork was essential to make sure students were placed in the correct courses.</p> <p>This institution, unlike any other in our sample, while on board with corequisite education at their institution, maintained an orthogonal subculture that was particularly evident in the sharing of and training for best practices of corequisite implementation at their institution. Although the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which mandated corequisites in Texas, offered trainings to institutions in the state, along with other institutions that were recognized for the ways in which they offered corequisites, Institution D felt many of these trainings and conferences did not meet their needs. Thus, they explored creating a conference of their own to help small schools like theirs learn other practices they felt worked for their type of institution. One faculty expounded:We were one of the smaller colleges there [at a state conference], and we found ourselves in meeting rooms talking about issues with people from [another college], which is an enormous community college system in the [city redacted] area, and other large systems and colleges with huge student bodies...And here we are, Institution D, with our handful of faculty, and our relatively small student body. So we found that we were kind of talking at cross points about what we found was most important. And we were making plans to host a small college conference to discuss those issues with other faculty from small colleges, because there are things that are specific to this size campus, this size student body and group of faculty that you deal with, that you don't deal with when you're talking about tens of thousands of students. When you have that many students, that many sections, that many faculty, you need probably clearer, more rigid policy, obviously [than Institution D does], to maintain your standards.</p> <p>Overall, institutions' practices varied, though some key similarities and differences are worth highlighting. On the bureaucratic end, corequisites often presented with fewer credit hour and modality options, offering less ambiguity and less room for poor corequisite delivery and implementation. Moreover, prior collaborations and ongoing trainings, in conjunction with outside entities, such as Complete College America, emphasized a more streamlined corequisite implementation in bureaucratic organizations. As two of the three bureaucratic institutions experienced enhancing subcultures, these served to ensure a smoother corequisite implementation. With only one anarchical institution, their initial creativity in partnering with outside departments was unlike what we saw elsewhere and at first, showed unique ways to implement corequisites. Still, their anarchical culture meant that corequisite implementation, in the context of this case, was much more challenging later, as it created additional work and strain on partnerships. With evidence of a counterculture, these difficulties were further exacerbated, particularly in IRW. Finally, the three collegial institutions benefitted from their teamwork and input from colleagues, as well as students, providing corequisites that were more tailored to meet students' unique needs, sometimes including placement through multiple measures. While context plays an important role in shaping culture, these associated strengths and weaknesses are ripe for discussion.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Without a doubt, "a strong organizational culture can control organizational behavior" (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2005, p. 353), yet minimal research on organizational culture during DE reform has been conducted. This is especially concerning as institutions and even states and their educational systems continue the push toward DE reform on a broader scale. While extant literature shows the promise of corequisite DE for improving student success outcomes (Austin et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref61">3</reflink>]; Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>]; Coca et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]; Denley, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]; Logue et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]; Meiselman & Schudde, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]; Miller et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]; Ran & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]) the purpose of our study was to explore corequisite implementation in the state of Texas following the passage of HB 2223, to provide a greater understanding of how institutions behaved during the scale-up to 100% corequisite education. In particular, we aimed to explore how institutions' specific cultures and subcultures played a role in the policy implementation process at their respective colleges and universities by identifying their institutional culture and subculture types and related practices during implementation.</p> <p>Overall, our findings indicate that even under the same statewide policy for scaling up corequisites, institutions responded uniquely in the context of their organizational cultures and subcultures. This general finding aligns with what we expected to occur given the complexities of and interactions between institutions and a major external statewide policy (HB 2223). This outcome further parallels previous organizational change literature that explains how institutions do not implement change strategies or policies in a uniform fashion, though this a widely held assumption (Kezar & Eckel, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref69">21</reflink>]). In our singular study with seven institutions, we witnessed three of Birnbaum's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref70">8</reflink>]) dominant culture types, including anarchical, bureaucratic, and collegial, and all three subculture types of enhancing, countercultural, and orthogonal (Hatch, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref71">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is important to note that the convergence of the dominant culture and subculture types led to even greater nuances in corequisite implementation practices. For example, the anarchical institution (Institution A) had an overwhelming number of types of corequisites in English and math given the institution's attempt to meet different student needs. Its counterculture, however, meant that some of its later efforts, like the course registration form, rebelled against the kind of implementation the institution's leadership desired. In the end, these conflicts hindered corequisite education implementation during the scale-up period, but longer-term outcomes should be explored.</p> <p>While some cultures and subcultures in this case study complicated policy implementation, other combinations of cultures and subcultures provided more supportive environments and practices for ensuring corequisite education was successfully implemented. This is critical to understand given that a "supportive organizational culture" is necessary during DE change to help different student populations (Barnett & Kopko, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref72">6</reflink>], p. 188). In many ways, the collegial dominant culture at three institutions demonstrated the strengths of the collegial type in providing a supportive culture for implementation. All three institutions showed evidence of faculty and staff bridging formal roles and divides to help each other during busy times of the year with advising and course placement. Two of the three institutions used multiple measures during students' course decision-making process, allowing greater flexibility amidst the scale-up. In line with more recent research on corequisite education, this flexibility and collaboration supported corequisite implementation at both employee and student levels (Daugherty et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref73">13</reflink>]; Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref74">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although not typically as flexible in nature given their hierarchical decision-making and clearly defined roles (Birnbaum, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref75">8</reflink>]), the three bureaucratic institutions similarly supported their institutions' corequisite scale-up, like their collegial counterparts. Not only did they have streamlined approaches, but one notable practice at bureaucratic institutions in our study was the use of data and an overall "data culture" to support their decisions when implementing different corequisites. This aspect of culture has been shown to enhance the way developmental coursework is designed and implemented (Barnett & Kopko, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]; Mokher et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref77">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>]; Natow et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref79">30</reflink>]), helping to explain one possible reason why the process was generally smooth and less challenging at these institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-20">Implications for Policy, Practice, and Future Research</hd> <p>Unlike most studies on DE reform, this study, a first of its kind, offers a unique perspective on the organizational cultures and subcultures of corequisite implementation. While exploring corequisite implementation at a single institution may still provide benefits for other institutions, looking more holistically at corequisite implementation as part of a multi-site case study, and in the context of cultures, provides certain implications for policy, practice, and future research. On the policy side, lawmakers and governing bodies should first take note of the potential similarities and differences that may appear during policy implementation according to institutions' organizational cultures and subcultures. In this way, expectations and recommendations for implementing corequisites should not necessarily be the same across the board, but rather, they may be tailored to meet institutions' specific needs. At the same time, connecting their policies and practices for implementation back to a larger, integrated framework according to organizational cultures and subcultures may help streamline the types of recommendations and practices that legislators and administrators put into play for institutions.</p> <p>In terms of practices that may improve corequisite implementation, especially as part of large-scale DE reform, policymakers and practitioners who opt to implement corequisites may consider working with institutions before commencing with implementation to identify their unique organizational cultures and subcultures. As a possible first step toward proactively preparing for corequisite implementation, recognizing these cultures and subcultures—and if and how they interact according to the integration of both Birnbaum ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref80">8</reflink>]) and Hatch's ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref81">18</reflink>]) frameworks—serves as one way to mitigate any potential pitfalls that may ensue with implementation, thereby enhancing it. In line with this suggestion, providing specialized training to institutions based on their organizational similarities and culture types is yet another way to improve corequisite implementation. Where similar organizational cultures and types exist, providing opportunities for greater connection and networking may also help reconcile problems when institutions struggle with the same issues rooted in their ways of existing and behaving. Ultimately though, we call for further research on corequisite implementation with regard to organizational cultures/subcultures, particularly in other states and state systems, and with institutions that differ still from those we identified and researched. As institutional practices and outcomes may not appear uniformly, understanding the ways that institutions act and operate during large-scale DE reform serves to propel this movement forward.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-21">Limitations</hd> <p>While we offer the findings and implications of this study with the hope of continuously improving corequisite implementation and larger DE reform, we must address the limitations that exist here. First and foremost, we recognize the shortcomings associated with the utilization of Zoom interviews during data collection rather than in-person site visits. Although site visits are highly valuable as they allow for the recognition of social cues and nonverbal communication, recent literature has posited that Zoom interviews still serve as a beneficial means for gathering data, citing participant and researchers' positive experiences with virtual interviewing, which we turn to for affirming the value and trustworthiness of our work (Gray et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref82">17</reflink>]; Oliffe et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref83">31</reflink>]). Further, in this case, Zoom allowed us to increase the diversity of our geographic sample that would have been less feasible if the research team had to travel to each site. Another limitation we encountered was that none of our institutions presented with the political culture, and as such, we were unable to provide any potential strengths or challenges in practices associated with this institutional culture type. Finally, we also point out the inability to generalize these findings to a larger audience, yet the insights and implications we offer may warrant greater discussion and interrogation of organizational cultures and subcultures during corequisite implementation in other state and institutional settings.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-22">Conclusion</hd> <p>Findings from this study bear significance at the state and institutional levels as there is not a "one-size-fits-all" approach for implementing corequisite education reform. In Texas, institutions spanned a range of types, sizes, and locations, but similarities and differences emerged in corequisite practices when considering institutional characteristics and organizational cultures and subcultures. On one end of the spectrum, the bureaucratic dominant culture gave way to efficiency in corequisite offerings, while on the other end, the anarchical represented confusion and inconsistency in course options. Enhancing subcultures dutifully carried out corequisite implementation, with a counterculture hindering corequisite enrollment. Although additional research is needed, connecting practices to organizational cultures gives administrators and lawmakers insight into potential pitfalls and considerations amidst overall DE reform, helping to improve corequisite implementation elsewhere.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-23">Author Contribution</hd> <p>All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript. HNH contributed to the conceptual idea, data collection, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. MMD contributed to the data collection and data analysis. TPG procured the grant funding for the study and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. CGM assisted with the writing of the manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-24">Funding</hd> <p>The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305A210319 to Florida State University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official position of the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the Texas Workforce Commission, or the State of Texas.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-25">Data Availability</hd> <p>The data used to support this study are not publicly available and include participant information. De-identified data can be made available upon request from the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0189417202-27">Consent to Participate</hd> <p>This study was determined to be exempt by Florida State University's IRB staff in accordance with federal regulatory requirements for Limited IRB review. Information sheets were provided to study participants in accordance to the exemption determination for this study (FSU IRB Study ID 00002442).</p> <hd id="AN0189417202-28">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0189417202-29"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref41" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anfara Jr, V. A, & Mertz, N. T. (Eds.). (2014). Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref51" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ary D, Jacobs L, Irvine C, Walker D. Introduction to research in education 10th. 2018ed; Cengage Learning</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Austin, M, Martorell, P, Miller, T, & Daugherty, L. (2024). The benefits of math corequisite support for academic outcomes for students in Texas (EdWorkingPaper: 24–903). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://doi.org/10.26300/c236-t320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref8" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey T. Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges. 2009; 2009; 145: 11-30. 10.1002/cc.352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref13" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey T, Jeong DW, Cho SW. Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review. 2010; 2; 29: 255-270. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref32" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, E. A, & Kopko, E. (2020). What really works in student success? Community College Research Center, Columbia University (CCRC Working Paper No. 121). Retrieved January 23, 2024, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/what-works-student-success.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bess, J. L, & Dee, J. R. (2012). Understanding college and university organization: Theories for effective policy and practice (1st paperback ed, Vol. 1–2). Stylus.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref42" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref34" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brower RL, Mokher CG, Bertrand Jones T, Cox BE, Hu S. From democratic to "need to know": Linking distributed leadership to data cultures in the Florida College System. AERA Open. 2020; 6; 1: 2332858419899065. 10.1177/2332858419899065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, S. W, Kopko, E, Jenkins, D, & Jaggars, S. S. (2012). New evidence of success for community college remedial English students: Tracking the outcomes of students in the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP). Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Retrieved February 18, 2024, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/ccbc-alp-student-outcomes-follow-up.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter CT, Ladd HF, Muschkin C, Vigdor JL. Developmental education in North Carolina community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2015; 37; 3: 354-375. 10.3102/016237371454726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coca, V, Daugherty, L, & Miller, T. (2024). The impacts and experiences of corequisite remediation for Latino students. The Journal of Higher Education 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2024.2362556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daugherty, L, Gomez, C. J, Gehlhaus, D, Mendoza-Graf, A, & Miller, T. (2018). Designing and implementing corequisite models of developmental education: Findings from Texas community colleges. RAND Corporation. Retrieved January 12, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RR2337.html">www.rand.org/pubs/research%5freports/RR2337.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denley, T. (2015). Corequisite remediation pilot study—fall 2014 and spring 2015. Retrieved February 19, 2024, from <ulink href="http://www.ticua.org/meetings%5fresources/sm%5ffiles/TBR%20CoRequisite%20Remediation.pdf">http://www.ticua.org/meetings%5fresources/sm%5ffiles/TBR%20CoRequisite%20Remediation.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edgecombe, N. (2011). Accelerating the academic achievement of students referred to developmental education (CCRC Working Paper No. 30). Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Retrieved January 28, 2024, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/accelerating-academic-achievement-developmental-education.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganga E. C, Mazzariello A. N, & Edgecombe N. D. (2018). Developmental education: An introduction for policymakers. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved January 9, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.ecs.org/developmental-education-an-introduction-for-policymakers/">www.ecs.org/developmental-education-an-introduction-for-policymakers/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray, L. M, Wong-Wylie, G, Rempel, G. R, & Cook, K. (2020). Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatch MJ. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. 2018; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/hebz/9780198723981.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaggars, S. S, & Stacey, G. W. (2014). What we know about developmental education outcomes. Research overview. Community College Research Center, Columbia University. Retrieved February 12, 2024, from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/what-we-know-about-developmental-education-outcomes.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaggars SS, Bickerstaff SPaulsen M. Developmental education: The evolution of research and reform. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. 2018; Springer: 469-503. 10.1007/978-3-319-72490-4_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar A, Eckel PD. The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education. 2002; 73; 4: 435-460. 10.1080/00221546.2002.11777159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logue AW, Douglas D, Watanabe-Rose M. Corequisite mathematics remediation: Results over time and in different contexts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2019; 41; 3: 294-315. 10.3102/0162373719848777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meiselman AY, Schudde L. The impact of corequisite math on community college student outcomes: Evidence from Texas. Education Finance and Policy. 2022; 17; 4: 719-744. 10.1162/edfp_a_00365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. B, & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B, Huberman, A. M, & Saldana, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller T, Daugherty L, Martorell P, Gerber R. Assessing the effect of corequisite English instruction using a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2022; 15; 1: 78-102. 10.1080/19345747.2021.1932000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mokher CG, Park-Gaghan TJ, Hu S. Accelerating to success: The impact of Florida's developmental education reform on credit accumulation. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education. 2020; 122; 12: 1-38. 10.1177/016146812012201206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mokher CG, Park-Gaghan TJ, Spencer H, Hu X, Hu S. Institutional transformation reflected: Engagement in sensemaking and organizational learning in Florida's developmental education reform. Innovative Higher Education. 2020; 45; 1: 81-97. 10.1007/s10755-019-09487-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mokher CG, Park-Gaghan TP, Hu S. What happens to efficiency and equity? The cost implications of developmental education reform. Research in Higher Education. 2021; 62; 2: 151-174. 10.1007/s11162-020-09593-w</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Natow RS, Reddy V, Grant M. Technology use in developmental education: Experiences, challenges, and rationales. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 2020; 44; 10–12: 738-756. 10.1080/10668926.2019.1642263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliffe, J. L, Kelly, M. T, Gonzalez Montaner, G, & Yu Ko, W. F. (2021). Zoom interviews: Benefits and concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053522</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park-Gaghan, T. P, Mokher, C. G, Henning, H, Daniels, H, Fatima, A, Ibrayeva, D, Danyi, M, McCoy, K. (2023). Exploring corequisite developmental education models in the Lone Star State: A second report on student success and corequisite coursework. Center for Postsecondary Success. https://doi.org/10.33009/FSU_5b15848f-d667-476d-839b-fd76629781b9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ran FX, Lin Y. The effects of corequisite remediation: Evidence from a statewide reform in Tennessee. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2022; 44; 3: 458-484. 10.3102/01623737211070836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saxon, P, & Martirosyan, N. M. (2017). NADE members respond: Improving accelerated developmental mathematics courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 41(1), 24–27. Retrieved December 3, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/44987471">www.jstor.org/stable/44987471</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott-Clayton J, Rodriguez O. Development, discouragement, or diversion? New evidence on the effects of college remediation policy. Education Finance and Policy. 2015; 10; 1: 4-45. 10.1162/EDFP_a_00150</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2017). 60x30TX regional starter kit. Retrieved February 9, 2024, from https://<ulink href="http://www.tccd.edu/documents/about/research/institutional-intelligence-and-research/reports/state/60-x-30-tx/60x30tx-regional-starter-kit-metroplex.pdf">www.tccd.edu/documents/about/research/institutional-intelligence-and-research/reports/state/60-x-30-tx/60x30tx-regional-starter-kit-metroplex.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tierney W. Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education. 1988; 59; 1: 2-21. 10.2307/1981868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentine JC, Konstantopoulos S, Goldrick-Rab. What happens to students placed into developmental education? A meta-analysis of regression discontinuity studies. Review of Educational Research. 2017; 87; 4: 806-833. 10.3102/0034654317709237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Holly N. Henning; Morgan M. Danyi; Toby J. Park-Gaghan and Christine G. Mokher</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Holly N. Henning Holly N. Henning is a Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate Research Assistant in the Higher Education Program in the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at Florida State University. Her research focuses on equity issues related to student success, access, and development, including developmental education reform and STEMM undergraduate and graduate education. Prior to her Ph.D., she worked for over a decade as a higher education practitioner in academic advising and international education settings.</p> <p>Morgan M. Danyi Morgan M. Danyi is a doctoral student in the Higher Education program in Florida State University's Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, where she is a graduate research assistant with the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS). Her research utilizes mixed methods to explore the attrition and retention of student affairs practitioners utilizing critical theories.</p> <p>Toby J. Park‐Gaghan Toby J. Park-Gaghan a Professor of Education Policy and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at Florida State, where he is also Associate Director of the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS). His primary research uses quasi-experimental methods and large statewide data sets to investigate student outcomes in postsecondary education and explore potential policy initiatives that could improve student success.</p> <p>Christine G. Mokher Christine G. Mokher is a Professor in the Higher Education program in Florida State University's Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, where she is also a Senior Research Associate with the Center for Postsecondary Success (CPS). Her research utilizes mixed methods to rigorously examine national, state, and local policies that support college and career readiness and success, with a particular emphasis on student transitions from secondary to postsecondary education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref83"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1496751
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: What Does Organizational Culture Tell Us about Developmental Education Reform? Corequisite Implementation in Texas
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holly+N%2E+Henning%22">Holly N. Henning</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-2542">0000-0001-8640-2542</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morgan+M%2E+Danyi%22">Morgan M. Danyi</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7120-4970">0000-0002-7120-4970</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Toby+J%2E+Park-Gaghan%22">Toby J. Park-Gaghan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8788-7369">0000-0001-8788-7369</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christine+G%2E+Mokher%22">Christine G. Mokher</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6060-6766">0000-0001-6060-6766</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Innovative+Higher+Education%22"><i>Innovative Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 50(6):2193-2213.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305A210319
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Culture%22">Organizational Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Studies+Programs%22">Developmental Studies Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Role%22">Institutional Role</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Required+Courses%22">Required Courses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Strategies%22">Learning Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Colleges%22">Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Subcultures%22">Student Subcultures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Change%22">Organizational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutional+Characteristics%22">Institutional Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Differences%22">Differences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10755-025-09787-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0742-5627<br />1573-1758
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A continuous topic of discussion in postsecondary success contexts is how institutions can assist students who need developmental education support. As part of an ongoing move away from lengthy developmental course sequences that delay students' time-to-degree completion, corequisite education models allow students to enroll in developmental courses in the same semester as college level courses. Under HB 2223 passed in 2017, Texas mandated all public postsecondary institutions to offer corequisite education as the main form of developmental education by 2021. This research study focuses on the organizational cultures and subcultures of seven institutions from different economic and geographic regions during the four-year policy implementation in Texas using qualitative data. Based on the theoretical lenses of Birnbaum's organizational cultures and Hatch's organizational subcultures, findings from this multi-site case study indicate that one institution represented an anarchical culture, three demonstrated bureaucratic cultures, and the final three showed collegial cultures. Organizational subcultures included mostly enhancing types with one institution revealing a counterculture and another showing an orthogonal subculture. Institutional practices, like number of credit hours and course delivery, also differed during implementation according to institutional profiles and characteristics.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1496751
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1496751
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10755-025-09787-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 2193
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Studies Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Postsecondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Role
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Required Courses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Subcultures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutional Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Differences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: What Does Organizational Culture Tell Us about Developmental Education Reform? Corequisite Implementation in Texas
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holly N. Henning
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morgan M. Danyi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Toby J. Park-Gaghan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christine G. Mokher
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0742-5627
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1758
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Innovative Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1