FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 79
Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University:
A Curriculum Analysis
Deborah R. Davis
Shawnee State University
Department of Teacher Education
Advisor – Dr. Valerie Myers
March 17, 2011
Candidate for Masters of Education, Curriculum & Instruction
Abstract
[[[[[ This section to be re-written upon review of near-finished product! ]]]]]
This paper explores the various Freshman Composition courses provided at Shawnee State University and the extent to which they meet the requirements outlined in the guidelines of the Ohio Board of Regents directives which flowed from the Ohio Board of Regents placement summit of March, 2007. This analysis is conducted amidst the backdrop of concerns regarding the extensive remedial and developmental English needs at this and other universities nationwide. An analysis of the varying methods of placement and curricula achievements at comparative universities is provided for reference. The paper discusses the implications of placement, describes various types of developmental/remedial/gatekeeping courses, and examines the factors affected by placement/retention in these courses. Further, this paper provides a comparative analysis of the standard Freshman Composition and Discourse program in both parts (English 1101 and 1102), as well as the developmental writing courses and provides review of the efforts to provide the best possible compositional foundation to students matriculating at this university.
Keywords: Freshman Composition – Remedial English – Remedial Reading – Freshman Writing – Placement Testing – Gatekeeper Courses – College Remediation – College Readiness – Developmental Courses – Developmental Reading – Developmental Writing – Developmental English – Postsecondary Remediation – College Preparedness – Curriculum Analysis
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Chapter One - Introduction 5
Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University 5
Overview 6
Table 1.1 8
Fall 2010 available course seats 8
Table 1.2 8
Spring 2011 available course seats 8
Research Question 9
Chapter Two - Literature Review 9
1. Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college? 9
2. What seems to be the cause(s) of the gap between high school achievement and college readiness? 10
4. What is being done to resolve these concerns? 15
5. How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to alleviating these concerns? 21
Chapter Three - Methodology and Design 24
Chapter Four - Data Analysis & Interpretation 29
Contextual Information and Framework 29
Table 4.1 31
English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University 31
Goals, grading and exit requirements 32
Table 4.2 35
Table 4.3 36
Textbooks and any Specific Assignments 37
Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy 45
Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods 46
Other Program-Related Information 47
Chapter Five - Summary, Discussion, and Application 47
References 51
Index to Tables 55
Index to Appendices 56
Chapter One - Introduction
Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University
The need to provide an equitable foundation in English Writing skills nearly equates to a freshman “rite of passage.” Virtually all college students have composed the foundational essays that form the basis of writing requirements that will be elaborated upon within the varying disciplines. Shawnee State University is no different in that regard. In most University programs, including Shawnee State, there are courses provided for those who do not meet the requirements anticipated at the freshman writing level. At this University, the courses are indicated in the course catalog as:
Ø ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics
o A student who earns an English subscore of 10 or lower is placed in English 0095 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards graduation).
Ø ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays
o A student who earns an English subscore of 11-18 is placed in English 0096 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards graduation requirements).
Ø ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1
Ø ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2
Ø While the Reading Development courses are important and pertinent to many issues, they are not directly related to the writing requirements and will not be addressed within this project.
Regarding placement, the university catalog states:
The university placement policy is prerequisite to enrolling in ENGL 1101 or ENGL 1102. Students completing developmental courses are required to pass not only the course itself but also the course exit exam before enrolling in ENGL1101. The composition sequence (ENGL 1101 or 1102, and 1105) is a prerequisite for advanced coursework in English (including the civilization and literature series) (Shawnee State University [SSU], 2007, p. 219).
However, consequent to the placement policy, the courses indicated above as the composition sequence are frequently required for completion of University General Education Program (GEP), Transfer Module, and advanced coursework in many majors. As such, the freshman student entering Shawnee State may have to take one of the above “developmental” programs prior to beginning the composition sequence.
The purpose of this curriculum analysis is to look at the curricula for the developmental writing classes to determine if the curricula provided meet the implied requirement of preparing the student for ENGL 1101 or 1102 -- the freshman English writing course – Discourse and Composition. Through this analysis, it is hoped that there will be clarification of the sequence of writing coursework objectives from developmental through the composition sequence. Beyond that, this analysis will provide a rationale for the necessity of the currently tiered program or identify alternatives as may be suggested by other state and university systems.
Overview
Shawnee State appears to be on par with many American universities in providing a combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs. A recent study shows “nearly 30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those who attend community college are forced to take noncredit remedial courses because, despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic skills in reading and math” (Carey, 2010 p. 2).
An analysis of English composition seats at Shawnee State University indicates a similar pattern. For this analysis, the enrollment period for the 2010-2011academic year is considered. Table 1.1 outlines the available seating for developmental courses and the beginning of the composition sequence for the Fall, 2010 semester. Below it, table 1.2 outlines the available seating for both developmental and standard composition coursework for the Spring, 2011 term. That there are 342 seats for developmental freshman composition class and 500 seats for standard freshman composition in Spring 2011 indicates the percentage (40%) of students enrolled in composition for whom seats are made available in developmental classes. The fact that 334 of those available seats were, in fact, occupied shows the need for those courses. In the Fall, of the nearly 900 seats available for regular composition seats, 88% were filled. The spring class seats available for 2011 were 905 for developmental and 888 for standard composition, with 95% of the regular composition seats filled. The percentage of 43% indicates similar ratios for fall as for spring.
Some states are addressing the issue of remedial coursework required prior to college level coursework, and others address the issue at the college level. In Ohio, and more specifically at Shawnee State University, the issue is addressed through remedial coursework such as the developmental sequence of courses described above. The question then arises, are the remedial courses preparing students to move forward through the composition sequence so as to be prepared for required Freshman-level compositions sequence? This is, then, the central question of this curriculum analysis.
Table 1.1
Fall 2010 available course seats
Course Number & Name / Seats / Filled / EmptyENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics / 66 / 54 / 12
ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:
Paragraphs and Essays / 608 / 518 / 90
ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) / 738 / 654 / 84
ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) / 140 / 128 / 12
ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) / 20 / 14 / 6
0.1.1
Table 1.2
Spring 2011 available course seats
Course Number & Name / Seats / Filled / EmptyENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics / 26 / 25 / 1
ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:
Paragraphs and Essays / 316 / 309 / 7
ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) / 480 / 455 / 25
ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) / 20 / 20 / 0
ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) / 0 / 0 / 0
Table 1.0.2
Research Question
Does the curriculum provided to the Shawnee State University freshman-level students enrolled in developmental writing classes meet the entry level curriculum needs for the required composition sequence, and more directly, English 1101 – Discourse and Composition?
Chapter Two - Literature Review
1. Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college?
Jenkins, Jaggars and Roksa (2009), note that the successful completion of college-level English and math are “important both because they are generally required for degree programs and because their attainment is associated with increased chances of earning a credential” (p. 12). This leads them to an exploration of “why some students take and pass gatekeeper courses while others do not, and to identify strategies colleges can use to increase students’ success in these gatekeepers and beyond (p. 12).” Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz (2007) suggest the need to develop “habits of mind”—engaging the students in problem-solving, analytical research, and supported interpretations and critical reasoning—thus helping students succeed in advanced level work (p. 31).
College instructors expect more from students. To make inferences and interpretations, to analyze and argue, to research and relate conclusions are all part and parcel of the expectations of college students. High school teachers are more likely to present the material more slowly, allow more time for responses, and generally expect less of the students. Pace is dramatically hastened as a student who may have been expected to lightly review two texts is required to consume and interpret several (Conley, 2008, p. 5). As Conley states, “In short, the differences in expectations between high school and college are manifold and significant” (p. 6).
Chen (2010), elaborates on the importance of learning strategies as they apply to knowledge levels. Chen’s study provides data regarding cognitive style and student conceptions and misconceptions regarding the gatekeeping coursework (p. 297). As stated within that body of work, “to learn effectively, students must organize and link their prior knowledge with new knowledge. Students who are unable to link new knowledge with prior knowledge have problems understanding, recalling, and accessing the new knowledge later” (p. 289). Without this linkage, students will face greater challenges in future educational endeavors. Students may have learned knowledge, facts, and issues in high school, but the ability to link them with future knowledge seems to be lacking. These links are established fully through the freshman foundation coursework at the college level in English and math, where prior teachings are reviewed lightly, and new methods and applications are presented.
2. What seems to be the cause(s) of the gap between high school achievement and college readiness?
Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz explain that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically under prepared” (p. 30). Such an observation may seem patently obvious, but students “often struggle in their first year as they attempt to meet strict college readiness requirements, often requiring a year or more of remediation” (p. 31).
Olson (2006) tells about students drawn from the top third of high school graduates, among whom “47 percent” were identified as needing remedial English instruction (p. 27). As Carey (2010) explains, “despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic skills in reading and math” (p. A30). Successful work in college level courses depends on good high school preparation, according to Jacobson (2006, p. 138).
Perhaps one of the most surprising reports about readiness issues was detailed by Perkins-Gough (2008) where over 80 percent of students evaluated noted they had done most all high school work, taken the most challenging high school courses, earned grade point averages (GPAs) of 3.0 or higher and basically thought themselves ready for college coursework (p. 88). Still, however, they were placed into remedial classes because the placement tests did not reflect the knowledge base required.
Despite the perceptions of the high school graduates who believe they are college-ready, much literature has been written about whether or not high school graduates are ready for college. Katsinas & Bush (2006) wrote a detailed article “Assessing What Matters: Improving College Readiness 50 Years Beyond Brown” in which arguments about the [then] new No Child Left Behind Act were addressed. They suggested that the “trajectory from secondary schools into higher education” is an “elusive goal” (p. 772), especially for minority students. The students represented in this study are presented as impaired by the “internal pressure at so many schools resulting from an emphasis on wall charts” (p. 781). This implies that students are spending so much time on standards that they do not have time to learn the context of the material, and consequently, they are not preparing them for higher learning skills.
Katsinas and Bush (2006) address placement exams and the “quality of the test-takers’ college preparation” (p. 777). They note that a lack of college level course work leads to the natural consequence of an unprepared graduate (p. 777). While the Katsinas and Bush article presents a focus on under-privileged and minority students, there is a broader application to those in the rural areas as well.
Carey (2010) indicates, “30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those who attend Community College” (p. A30) are placed in remedial coursework because of a lack of basic English and math skills. Brock (2010) explains that the open admissions policy of the 1960s and 1970s led to a policy to “allow all high school graduates to pursue college degrees regardless of academic preparation” (p. 112). He notes that assigning students to remedial coursework “clearly divides them from students considered to be ‘college ready’” (p. 116).
However, even before the open enrollment boom of the 1960s, there were students in need of remedial teaching as noted by McGann (1947). Her study showed marked improvement upon remedial instruction, particularly among boys (p. 502). Her focus on remedial coursework as a place for students to accrue maturity and receive guidance is supported by the current work of George (2010), who puts the remedial program in the position of “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose academic and social advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a test” (p. 83).