FRESHMAN COMPOSITION1
The Beginning Freshman English Composition Sequence including Developmental Coursework 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 analysis 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. Further discussion includes 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 effortreflects 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
Introduction
Overview
Research Question
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Literature Review
Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college?
How significant is the gap between high school achievement and college readiness and what is its impact?
How are college readiness concerns being addressed?
How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to improved college remediation?
Methodology and Design
Data Analysis & Interpretation
Contextual Information and Framework
Table 4.1
Goals, grading and exit requirements
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy
Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods
Other Program-Related Information
Summary, Discussion, and Application
Recommendations
Summary
References
Index to Tables
Index to Appendices
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 also 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:
ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics
- 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).
ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays
- 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).
ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1
ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2
- 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).
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, andadvanced coursework in many majors. As such, the freshman student entering Shawnee State who does not meet the requirements for entry into English 1101 or above 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 thedevelopmental 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 beginning of 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 Stateappears to be on par with many American universitiesin 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 2010-2011 academic 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 standards composition coursework for the Spring, 2011 term.
In the Fall Semester, of the nearly 900 seats available for standard composition courses, 88% (796) were filled. Of the 674 seats available for developmental freshman composition, 572 (85%) were filled. Therefore, of the total seats occupied in Fall (1368), 41.8% were filled with developmental composition students. In the Spring, a total of 809 seats were filled with composition students, and 41.3% (334) of those were developmental composition students. For the year, therefore, a total of 2177 students were registered for freshman composition, with 906 registered for developmental composition, a tally of 41.6%.
Some states are addressing the issue of remedial coursework required prior to college level coursework at the high school level, 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 above described courses. 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 the central question of this curriculum analysis.
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 specifically, English 1101 – Discourse and Composition?
Table 1.1
Fall 2010 available course seatsCourse Number & Name / Seats / Filled / Empty
ENGL 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 seatsCourse Number & Name / Seats / Filled / Empty
ENGL 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
Literature Review
One of the biggest issues of concern with regard to any curriculum is the functionality of the curriculum for readying students to move forward with their education. The need for remediation coursework in colleges and universities is well documented nationwide (Carey, 2010;Attewell, Lavin, DominaLevey 2006; Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz, 2007). A trend toward a lack of college readiness has predicated the need for developmental, remedial, or gatekeeping courses (these terms will be used interchangeably). If students were better prepared upon arrival at institutions of higher learning, the entire developmental program would be rendered moot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Therefore, in order to understand the issue of coursework that is below college freshman level composition sequence requirements, it is important to gain a framework of the entire question of remediation. To do this, it is important to look at several questions.
Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college?
How significant is the gap between high school achievement and college readiness and what is its impact?
What isreadiness, and how is it being measured?
How are college readiness concerns being addressed?
How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to improved college remediation?
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). The authors pursue an exploration of “why some students take and pass gatekeeper courses while others do not” and “identify strategies colleges can use to increase students’ success in these gatekeepers and beyond (p. 12).” Cline, et el. (2007) suggest the need for college students to develop “habits of mind”—engagement of the students in problem-solving, analytical research, and supported interpretations and critical reasoning—thus helping students succeed in advanced level work(p. 31).
Chen (2010) elaborates on the importance of developing 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.
How significant is the gap between high school achievement and college readiness and what is its impact?
Cline et al. explain that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically under prepared [sic]” (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).They construe the problem in terms of the “50 percent of entering freshmen system wide [who] need remediation in English or mathematics.” Those 50 percent are out of the 33 percent of high school seniors who “should be eligible to enter the California State University system” (p. 30). Yang (2010) concurs strongly that “Many students who register for undergraduate study are under-prepared for university education.” The focus of Yang’s study is on reading, and the lack of strategies or strategic intent. However, it is likely that the same can be said of college writing.
Olson (2006) describes a study in which students are drawn from the top third of high school graduates, among whom “47 percent” were identified as needing remedial English instruction (p. 27). As explained by Carey (2010) , “despite their high-school diplomas, [remedial students] lack basic skills in reading and math” (p. A30). However, as Jacobson (2006) notes, successful work in college level courses depends on good high school preparation (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 college preparatory 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, they were placed into remedial classes because the placement tests did not reflect that they had the knowledge base required.
Despite the perceptions of high school graduates, who believe they are college-ready, much literature has been written about high school graduates not being 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 being prepared for higher learning skills such as inference, research, and independent or collaborative learning.
Katsinas and Bush (2006) also 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 inner city students, there is a broader application to those in the rural areas as well.
Historically, 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 with the introduction of 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).
In an article entitled “Closing the College Readiness Gap,” Cline et al (2007) questioned whether the problem of college readiness goes beyond just fulfilling eligibility requirements. The realization that “meeting basic eligibility requirements for college may not equate to being prepared for college-level work” is the focus of their report (p. 30). This study notes that “the dropout rate at the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically underprepared” (p. 30). The authors further note that “the need for remediation at the post-secondary level, even for those students who enter as fully qualified, has become increasingly worrisome” (p. 31).
Jacobsen (2006) discusses the dichotomy of higher standards and greater problems, noting that while most students will perform at a higher standard if required, those who are unprepared academically may end up falling to the wayside in an increasing gap. Perkins-Gough (2008) also expressed concerns about students who are not prepared, presenting the same conclusions as Brock (2010) and Jacobsen (2006)—a loss of the unprepared. Callahan & Chumney (2009), like Olson and Gewertz (2006, 2010), discussed positioning remedial students for success and suggest that a more stringent method of preparation will set them in a better position for achievement.
George (2010) focuses on remedial mathematics education, but his points are well made with respect to remedial English education as well. His focus is largely on motivation, ethics, social context, and “choices that extend beyond” (p. 82) and not just within the field of mathematics. He references the position of remedial professor as a “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose academic and social advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a [mathematics] placement examination” (p. 83). Another pertinent point from George is that “many students’ experiences in public schools involved being ‘passed along’ despite expending very little effort” (p. 85). This has causedthese students not to develop the skills needed to succeed at the college level. Not only do students with low grade point averages fall within this bracket; the true pity in this issue is that it is true for many students of widely varying capabilities and scores.
Zajacova, Lynch & Espenshade (2005) place the burden of capability squarely within the realm of self-efficacy. This view focuses on “academic self-efficacy rather than generalized self-efficacy, where academic self-efficacy refers to students’ confidence in their ability to carry out such academic tasks as preparing for exams and writing term papers” (p. 679). This is compounded by stress, which they define as “when external demands tax or exceed a person’s adaptive abilities” (p. 679). They also quote Perrine, noting “stress has also been identified as a factor negatively affecting persistence for college freshmen” (p. 679).
What is readiness, and how is it being measured?
Conley (2008) presented an article on “Rethinking College Readiness” where he addressed variance in high school preparedness and the consequences. Here he explains that “A key problem is that the current measures of college preparation are limited in their ability to communicate to students and educators the true range of what students must do to be fully ready to succeed in college” (p. 3). He expresses concern that these current measures are merely the conventional standard of courses taken and grades received. This is indicated as short-sighted and a far more complex model is presented. In his model, the “college-ready student is able to understand what is expected in a college course, can cope with the content knowledge that is presented, and can develop the key intellectual lessons and dispositions the course is designed to convey” (p. 4).