Abstract - PBworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · Web viewmarked...

Running head: FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 1

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 29, 2011

Candidate for Masters of Education, Curriculum & Instruction

FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 2

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 effort reflects 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 Shawnee State 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

Introduction..........................................................................................................................5

Overview..........................................................................................................................6

Research Question............................................................................................................8

Table 1.1...........................................................................................................................9

Table 1.2...........................................................................................................................9

Literature Review..............................................................................................................10

Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college?...........10

How significant is the gap between high school achievement and college readiness and

what is its impact?..........................................................................................................12

What is readiness, and how is it being measured?.........................................................15

How are college readiness concerns being addressed?..................................................17

How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to improved

college remediation?......................................................................................................23

Methodology and Design...................................................................................................25

Institutional and Course Structure..................................................................................26

Data Analysis & Interpretation..........................................................................................31

Contextual Information and Framework........................................................................31

Table 4.1.........................................................................................................................33


Goals, grading and exit requirements............................................................................34

Table 4.2.........................................................................................................................37

Table 4.3.........................................................................................................................38

Textbooks and any Specific Assignments.....................................................................39

Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy............................................................50

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods....................................................................50

Other Program-Related Information..............................................................................52

Summary, Discussion, and Application.............................................................................53

Recommendations..........................................................................................................57

Summary........................................................................................................................62

References..........................................................................................................................65

Index to Tables..................................................................................................................69

Index to Appendices..........................................................................................................70


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

o A student who earns an English sub-score 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

o A student who earns an English sub-score 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

o 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, and advanced 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 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 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 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 2010-2011 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 seats

Course 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 seats

Course 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, Domina, & Levey 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 is readiness, 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

al. (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 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). Cline et al. 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 (in this particular study) “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 poverty 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 (2006) and Gewertz

(2010), discussed positioning remedial students for success and suggested 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, also. 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 caused these 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 and 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 explained

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 expressed 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).

“Exactly what constitutes ‘college-level work’ is by no means clear” (Attewell et

al., 2006, p. 887). Still, best defined by Conley (2008), readiness is “the degree to which

previous educational and personal experiences have equipped [students] for the

expectations and demands they will encounter in college” (p. 7). Conley (2008)

suggested that the concept is based on “four facets: key cognitive strategies, key content

knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and knowledge” (p. 3).

Cline, Bissell, Hafner and Katz (2007) allow that the focus should be on

“preparing students to succeed in college-level work rather than on fulfilling basic

eligibility requirements that are primarily course- and grade-based.” The desire to close

the gap, as expressed by Cline et al. (2007), is echoed extensively by Katsinas and Bush

(2006). They define readiness as “a seamless system that improves articulation and

degree completion, and that promotes a positive trajectory from our nation’s secondary

schools into higher education” (p. 772).

Part of the focus of readiness seems to be on the ability to predict success and

failure during the first year of college coursework. Burlison, Murphy, and Dwyer (2009)

presented three questions about academic performance as related to motivation. These


questions, part of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), related

to expectancy/ability, value/importance, and affect/threat of evaluation. The

questionnaire was designed to predict student readiness for college. After a detailed study

including more than 350 participants, they found that while the questionnaire provided

some minimal input to student abilities during the first year of college, the ACT and SAT

scores were every bit, if not more, effective at predicting first year performance.

How are college readiness concerns being addressed?

The ability for students to successfully matriculate to college and complete the

first year without remediation is a harbinger for success through and up to

commencement. Beyond that, it has also been found that students who are challenged

through high school will have greater success, not only in college but in life (Attewell et

al, 2006, p. 887). Two approaches to the lack of college readiness are improved high

school instruction and remedial courses in college. However, college remediation has

become so commonplace that some college professors and administrators question

whether more should be done to prepare students prior to their entering the college

setting. On the other hand, “supporters of developmental education … construe the

controversy over remediation as an attack on access to college.” The concern is then

raised that “policies that prevent students who need remedial/developmental work from

enrolling in four-year colleges could greatly reduce the likelihood that such students

would ever obtain bachelor’s degrees” (Attewell et al, 2006, p. 887).

With regard to the improved high school instruction approach, Conley (2008)

advised that students be challenged throughout their academic careers. Further, he noted

that key cognitive strategies, academic knowledge, academic behaviors, and information


and its access are critical elements to success (p. 7-10). “College knowledge is

distributed inequitably in society” (p. 10). His baseline conclusion was that students who

want to be college ready need to be set a standard of readiness, not just eligibility. The

skills to “read eight to ten books in the same time that a high school class requires only

one or two” is a critical element. Another is to “write multiple papers in rapid succession

. . . well reasoned, well organized, and well supported . . . .” He contrasts this with high

school where “students may write one or two research papers at most throughout all of

high school and may take weeks or months to do so” (p. 5). His views suggest that many

who are eligible are unready.

Gewertz (2010) recommends common standards for college preparatory classes,

which is pertinent because they lay out a set of readiness skills that students could be

expected to master by high school graduation (p. 1). These skills cover every area of

academia, and in the English section, contain hundreds of pages of appendices of “at least

adequate” performance at varying grade levels (p. 2).

Carey (2010) suggests that “states should be required to offer remedial placement

exams to all high-school students, without charge, at the end of the 11th grade” (p. A30).

This would fit well with Gewertz’s (2010) recommendation of a construct of common

standards for college preparatory classes so that completing high school English

programs would clearly prepare students to move forward into college English (p. 14).

Olson (2010) and Carey (2010) describe a program in California in which those who need

the help, as evaluated at the end of eleventh grade, can get it in grade 12, using a program

“developed jointly by high school teachers and [California State University] faculty

members” (p. 27 & A31).


Cline et al. (2007) described a program, incorporated in high schools in

California, that encompasses curriculum options, professional development for educators,

and assessment methods (p. 31). “Students are encouraged to think rhetorically,” and

they develop an ability to respond appropriately (p. 31). Assessments improved

markedly under the new curriculum as administered by the newly trained educators.

Consequently, students were better prepared for college and more successful, requiring

little to no remediation (p. 32). Students in the study showed “a significant increase on

the statewide test in English language arts. The gains among these students [using the

new curriculum and newly trained educators] were almost four times as large as the

statewide gain and more than twice as large as found in control schools” (p. 32). The

resulting impact on college readiness was an elimination of remedial programming at the

university level and a reduction of classes at the community college level.

According to Katsinas and Bush (2007), “about 2/3 of high school graduates go

on to college” (p. 780), emphasizing that more attention needs to be paid to the way in

which college readiness is addressed within the high school curriculum. In this article

the authors address the matter that “the assessment mechanism drives system

performance” (p. 781). The intense problem is “the internal pressure” and focus on

“micro-outcomes such as standardized, in-classroom test scores” (p. 781). The authors

recommend an emphasis on “larger macro level indicators associated with . . . positive

outcomes of high school” (p. 781). Meeting these macro-level indicators would be better

associated with students developing the types of positive outcomes needed for college

readiness.


Brock (2010), however, believes that the solution is at the college level. He

presents an idea to “remake remedial education so that greater numbers of students

acquire basic skills and go on to earn college degrees” (p. 116). Attewell et al. (2006)

point out that there is a positive influence in that “those students who do complete some

remedial coursework may have superior prospects of graduating” (p. 892). Callahan &

Chumney (2009) studied the mindset of students in both two and four-year college

remediation programs, and learned that the program at the four-year institution

encouraged students to “acquire a habitus of what is required to be successful” at college.

This habitus presented by Callahan & Chumney (2009) is what Katsinas & Bush

(2009) term a “culture of engagement” and is what Dr. David Swinton (as cited in

Holsendolph, 2005) terms a “culture of effort,” which is captured in his program of

“Success Equals Effort (SEE).” In this program, student grades in the first two years are

actually calculated on a rubric which incorporates not only objective success, but allows a

substantial (60%) apportionment to be based on a student’s effort (p. 30-33). He does,

however, allow that “adult remediation programs have a poor track record” (p. 33).

Brock (2010), despite his positive outlook on college remediation, specifically notes that

“research and anecdotal evidence suggest that many students who are assigned to

remedial education drop out of the classes (and often out of college) and that those who

remain make slow progress” (p. 116).

George (2010) notes the importance of keeping remedial students in school to

ensure their motivation within the classes and to monitor their progress (p. 88). He

suggests that it is part of the instructor’s challenge to motivate students, and to some

extent that challenge can be viewed solely within the context of teaching in its pure form.


Pedagogical methodology and style may in themselves be factors that motivate students

by making the material interesting and exciting (p. 84). He further suggests that “where

student motivation enters the realm of ethics is in those motivational potentialities that

extend beyond teaching” (p. 85). To that end, he addressed “motivation by intervention,”

wherein the instructor directly endeavors to engage the individual student. Further, he

encourages “motivation by policy,” where the institution has some governing directive

involving course grading, credit, or exit policies.

Carey (2010) provides data on how many students are assigned to remedial

coursework upon college entry. His study indicated that “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” (p. A30). He notes that students are shocked to find

themselves in remedial coursework and explains that remedial placement is “highly

associated with an increased risk of dropping out [of college]” (p. A31). Olson (2006)

suggests ways to preclude remediation by better preparation. Like Carey (2010), Olson

recognizes the value of early placement testing to determine needs for remediation while

students are still within the high school years. Were this type of program implemented

nationwide, the entire question of remediation at the college level would likely become

moot, as high schools would become aware of and respond to the need for remediation.

In an early assessment of the role of college remediation vs. expanded high school

coursework, McGann (1947) suggested that students unready for a collegiate experience

need further tutelage and perhaps maturity to be successful in college. Her work was

groundbreaking in that it fell on the cusp of the vastly expanded Government Issue


Educational Benefits Bill (GI-Bill). The GI-Bill opened the doors of the Universities

nationwide to veterans who may never have anticipated college and also to those who had

been out of school for years. Her instruction methods detailed the efficacy of a remedial

program, applied to adult students (even younger adults), and the greater success that

followed (p. 501).

Suddick (1982) found value in the use of college assessment tests to address

remediation, including the American College Testing Program (ACT), Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT), and Test of Standard Written English (TSWE), for upper division

students, even though these assessments had previously been used only for freshman

entrance evaluations. The testing program review led to a remedial approach that

eliminated fundamental English classes for some students while expanding them for

others, based on test scores.

While efforts to address learning disabilities do not always apply to remediation,

Cowden (2010) offered an excellent analysis that does apply. He suggested that students

learn in differing methods, manners, and patterns, and that those with learning disabilities

need particular instruction in overcoming those disabilities. The reality is that all students

learn in differing methods, manners, and patterns. Because colleges/universities tend to

apply the same structure and same tests to all incoming students, the individual learning

methods of the students are not considered nor developed. Efforts to better address

individual student learning methods could improve the quality of college remedial

courses.


How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to improved

college remediation?

Perkins-Gough (2008) presented an effective argument for a “more efficient K-

16” program. This is particularly interesting in light of the Ohio Board of Regents (OBR)

2005 analysis of the need for a K-16 approach to education and their subsequent work

with the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) on such a program. Evaluating the SSU

remedial writing curriculum presents the opportunity to evaluate one way in which

Shawnee State is attempting to support the K-16 alignment presented by the OBR and

ODE.

Many of the previously discussed articles have different foci, but the emphasis is the

same. There is a difference between “eligible” for college and “ready” for college. The

previously discussed issues within the literature review coalesce to provide background

to the questions being considered herein regarding the remedial writing curricula at

Shawnee State University. Is the remedial curriculum we are offering our freshman

writers providing the solid, contiguous foundation needed for advanced academic

prowess? Since the research suggests that students entering college are not ready for

college, ways are needed to make the learning more fluid between high school and

college course work. Presently, this is being addressed at SSU through remedial writing

courses at the college level. Whether or not this is the best approach is yet to be

determined, but because it is what we have, it is important to consider whether the

curriculum we provide supports remedial students or if that coursework needs to be

realigned.

Some concerns with the remedial approach continue to exist. As noted by Horn &

Campbell (2009), “Some research suggests the number of developmental classes a


student is required to take negatively relates with the likelihood of completion” (p. 514).

However, the “upside”, as noted by Bahr (2010), is that “Remedial English students who

attain college-level English competency . . . are comparable to students who achieve

college-level English skill without remediation” (p. 190).

In order to ensure that SSU is truly helping students to achieve college-level

English competency, this curriculum analysis of the remedial writing courses and the

composition sequence for which they prepare students has been undertaken. The goal is

to ensure that the remedial courses provided the seamless transition that is needed to

move students into the appropriate level of college readiness needed to achieve higher

education success.


Methodology and Design

This paper is designed to analyze the curriculum prescribed for entry- level

students at Shawnee State University. It presents and evaluates evidence as to whether

the curriculum aids students in the foundational English skills needed to succeed

throughout their college careers and makes suggestions for improvement. The texts

directed for use, the hierarchy that oversees the selection of texts, and sample curriculum

templates that professors are provided will all be analyzed.

A curriculum analysis is not the same kind of research as a qualitative or

quantitative analysis of specific questions and numeric answers. A “Whitepaper” by

Newberry & Kueker (2008) asks, “How do you Recognize a Rigorous and Relevant

Curriculum?” While that document is designed for work in science and mathematics

curricula, many of the methods apply to all curricula. Foremost is the opening comment,

“Selecting and implementing rigorous and relevant curricula is paramount to success in

today’s education climate” (p. 1).

Implementation of this type of research requires a rigorous review of developed

course content and materials provided to the faculty and the indicated or guided

presentation of same to students. Evaluation of assessment methods should lead to

suggestions for alternative options if appropriate. Important questions that will guide this

review are:

Do described curricula for ENGL 0095 (Basic Writing 1: Mechanics) and

0096 (Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays) provide the appropriate

practice and emphasis indicated in the Shawnee State University catalog such


that students enter ENGL 1101 or 1102 fully prepared to be successful in one

of these two courses?

Is curricular overlap sufficient to meet the readiness needs of future courses or

simply redundant?

Institutional and Course Structure

Shawnee State University, like most institutions of higher learning, is broken into

Colleges. Within the College of Arts and Sciences is the Department of English and the

Humanities. Within this Department resides the Division of Composition and

Developmental English (CDE). At least annually, the Division publishes a document that

contains an overview of the required courses, program policies and resources, and

syllabus templates for each course. The instructions within this document specifically

indicate that “it is vital that the core syllabus for each section of these courses be the

same” (CDE, 2010, p. 3). Following this dictate, these are the syllabi that will be used in

the analysis of the curricula for these courses. Analysis will be applied, in sequence, to

English 0095, 0096, 1101, and 1102. These syllabus templates are attached to this

document in appendices A, B, C and D without modification except for page numbers.

Goals are noted within each of these syllabus templates. The goals of ENGL

0095 and ENGL 0096 are to prepare the student for ENGL 0096 and ENGL 1101

respectively. The “goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on the Council of

Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition and

on the University System of Ohio’s Outcomes for English Composition” (CDE, 2010, p.

30). The same is true of ENGL 1102, which is, however, an “accelerated introduction to

college composition” (p. 33). While the syllabus templates for many of the classes do not


detail the placement requirements, the indicators on the ENGL 0096 syllabus presents

that it is designed for “students who earn 11-18 on the English ACT sub-score” (p. 20).

While students may take ACT or SAT tests as many times as they and their families

choose, the COMPASS test is offered for free at the school testing center and is therefore

limited in opportunities to an annual event or as a part of the course curriculum. Further,

the catalog points out that while “ordinarily, a student may take the placement test only

once, a student may petition for the opportunity to challenge his or her placement by

filling out the ‘Request for Retest’ form” (p. 20). A review of the records in the testing

center reflects that for the last several years there have been no requests for retests.

Discussion with teachers of these courses indicates that mention in the syllabus of the

retest option is unexpected to the students.

The students have this information in the university catalog and are given this

information at their brief orientation program and at group registration. However, the

reality of the number of things they must process at those times indicates a likelihood that

the retest option simply does not register with most students. Then, when it is addressed

in class, the students express surprise at the information, yet are unwilling to pursue the

change.

In that a detailed search and repeated requests to the Ohio Department of

Education and the Ohio Board of Regents indicate that Ohio has no set standard for

Curriculum Analysis, this analysis will be conducted in accordance with the standards of

the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) Curriculum Analysis Report (CAR)

Reviewer’s Guide (West Virginia Department of Education, Department of Educator

Certification [WVDE], 2010). Among the many details in the Reviewer’s Guide is a


specific format for the CAR. That format is a guideline for program review of teacher

preparation programs but will be adapted to provide this analysis by course. The process

will be repeated for each of the courses evaluated. While ENGL 0095 and 0096 are

handled separately, ENGL 1101 and 1102 are parallel structures and will be handled

collectively. The difference between them is the number of in-class hours.

For ENGL 1101, those students with an ACT English subscore of 19 but less than

24 will enroll in this five-unit class, thereby spending five hours per week in a supervised

instruction setting. For ENGL 1102, those students whose ACT English subscore meets

or exceeds 24 may enroll in this three unit class, meeting all the same curricular

requirements but with two hours per week less of supervised instruction.

Elements that are part of the CAR review process and that will be considered

during the analysis process include (1) Contextual Information and Framework,

(2) Textbooks and any Specific Assignments, (3) Guidelines from the Institution or its

Hierarchy, (4) Faculty Leeway (if any), (5) Assessment Methods, and (6) Other Program-

Related Information. Each of these six components will be addressed for the three

courses. Following the individual course curriculum analysis, there will be a section for

comparison to determine overlap, appropriateness, review, and/or redundancy.

Following the recommendations of the CAR, the section entitled Contextual

Information and Framework will include a discussion of placement, exit requirements,

and grade requirements for the course. Further, there will be an analysis of how this

particular course fits within the framework of the University requirements. These

elements will be compared to those of other universities who have similar requirements

or structure as a part of the Framework section.


The section entitled Textbooks and Specific Assignments will contain the detailed

citation material for the texts, as required for the course in question, as well as any

supplemental material indicated to be of value. Beyond these items, there will be an

analysis of specific assignments directed within the syllabus and their relationship to the

overarching goals of the course, as indicated in the syllabi.

The section entitled Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy will include

any state or national indicators. Additionally, anything this particular university has

established would be included here along with the rationale. The sections entitled

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods will be brief and combined, in that related

information is specifically stated if required or allowed.

A concluding section for each course, under the heading of Other Program-

Related Information, will allow for anything that does not fit neatly into the other

categories yet merits attention. Newberry & Kueker (2008) authored a Whitepaper for

Vivayic, Inc. on curriculum analysis; this will be addressed in Chapter 5—Summary,

Discussion, and Application. These elements specifically lean toward “learned

curriculum.” It is important to note that the Newberry & Kueker elements are geared

toward both rigor and relevance while the WVDE CAR is focused more strictly on

relevance.

Vivayic is a company focuses on the belief that “learning - when well designed -

is key to achieving an organization’s objectives. Human capital is maximized.

Onboarding (maximizing new employee orientation) is abbreviated. New market

opportunities are seized. New initiatives are accomplished.” In the Whitepaper published

in 2008, the details of curriculum analysis are addressed as well as purposes and


methodology for reaching conclusions of value. The Whitepaper is written by Pam

Newberry & Doug Kueker . Pam Newberry is a former Albert Einstein Fellow who also

received the Presidential Award for Excellence in Teaching. Doug Keuker has led and

participated in more than 25 national curriculum design, development, implementation and

evaluation projects (Newberry & Kueker, 2008, p. 30).


Data Analysis & Interpretation

Contextual Information and Framework

The WVDE CAR indicates that this element is to “provide the context of the

program . . . the number of hours . . . the criteria for admission, retention, and exit from

the program . . .” (p. 8). While the CAR is presented as a model for program-wide

application, in this case, the CAR will be used as a framework for the analysis of a

singular field and specific courses.

Under the auspices of the Ohio Board of Regents, there are general and specific

guidelines to the English Expectations for College Readiness published in 2007 (OBR).

Elements for such are broken into reading, writing, oral communication, and viewing and

using visual media. The focus of this effort, however, is on the writing elements, thus it

is critical to address the guidelines from this document that are specific to the area of

writing. The general guidelines for writing are:

The student who is prepared to enter post-secondary education or the world of

work produces writing that meets the needs of a particular task and audience. The

writer selects from a repertoire of processes to develop writing for such purposes

as persuasion, explanation, or personal expression. The writer’s style and

organizational structures are apparent and appropriate for the rhetorical task. The

writer is also adept at responding in writing to other texts, critiquing and

analyzing those texts. Writing fulfills its intended purpose, is well organized,

clear, well-developed, and logical, while exhibiting use of the conventions of the

English language appropriate to the writing situation. The writing also exhibits

word choices that convey intended meaning (OBR, 2007, p. 2).


This general guideline is followed by a list detailing specifics, which demonstrate how

these elements are applied.

Shawnee State University has a tiered structure of English writing courses, as

indicated previously, which attempt to ensure the students’ ability to meet these

guidelines prior to entering ENGL 1101/1102. Placement, according to the Catalog, is

based upon test scores:

If you enter with an ACT English sub-score of 19 or higher (SAT 460) and a

reading sub-score of 16 or higher, you will be permitted to register for ENGL

1101. If you enter with an ACT English sub-score of 24 or higher (SAT 550) and

a reading sub-score of 16 or higher, you will be permitted to register for ENGL

1102. (SSU, 2007, p. 25).

Any students who score an 18 or below on the ACT sub-score are placed in

English 0095 or 0096, courses that are designed to remediate the students’ deficiencies.

Beyond the ACT measures, a cost-free alternative is provided. “If a student has

not taken the ACT, he/she will be required to take the COMPASS battery of placement

tests. Placement measures in mathematics, reading, and writing are components of

COMPASS” (SSU, 2007, p. 25). Placement within the structure of Shawnee State

University occurs on the following basis:

All new degree-seeking students are initially admitted to the University College.

With the exception of selective programs, students matriculate into the academic

department of their choice, once they have demonstrated proficiency in college-

level English and mathematics via the University’s placement tests or qualifying

scores on the ACT/SAT/PRAXIS (SSU, 2007, p. 15).


Depending on a student’s aptitudes, base knowledge, and skills, there are courses

that are advised and those that may be required. These courses fall within the framework

of “Developmental Education.” “Developmental courses provide underprepared students

an opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to attempt college-level

coursework.” An important note to this entire issue is that “Credit hours earned in

developmental courses, excluding UNIV 1101, cannot apply toward degree

requirements” (SSU, 2007, p. 26).

Table 4.1, which is extracted from the 2007 catalog within the Office of

Admissions Placement directive, summarizes the entry requirements for each course.

Table 4.1

English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University

English ACT

Sub-score

English Placement Reading

ACT Sub-

score

English Placement

24 or higher ENGL 1102

19-23 ENGL 1101

11-18 ENGL 0096 11-15 ENGL 0096

10 or lower ENGL 0095 10 or

lower

ENGL 0095

Note: This information is extracted from the 2007 catalog.

4.1

Also, according to the catalog, the University website, and the department

guidelines:


Students who believe they are not prepared for the course they are placed into

may opt to take a lower-level course. For example, a student who has a 21 ACT

English subscore may choose to take ENGL 0096 instead of ENGL 1101.

Students who believe they are stronger writers than their ACT or

COMPASS score indicates may petition the Department of English and

Humanities for an opportunity to take a writing placement examination. Students

are encouraged to confer with a representative from the writing faculty before

enrolling in a lower-level course or petitioning to challenge their placement

(Shawnee State University, 2007).

Goals, Grading and Exit Requirements

“The primary goal of English 0095 is to prepare students for English 0096” (CDE,

p. 16). Students are tasked to keep a portfolio of all work completed in English 0095.

The grading policy is based on a Pass/No-Credit policy. Neither a Pass (P) nor a No-

Credit (NC) will affect the student’s grade point average (GPA). In order to receive a

“P” in this course, the student must earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on a

majority of the required writings; earn an average of at least 70% on in-class and out-of-

class exercises; and pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.

“The primary goal of English 0096 is to prepare students for English 1101” (CDE,

p. 21). Students are tasked to keep a portfolio of all work completed in English 0096.

The grading policy is based on a Pass/No-Credit policy. Neither a Pass (P) nor a No-

Credit (NC) will affect the student’s grade point average (GPA). In order to receive a

“P” in this course, the student must earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on at least


three of the required essays; earn an average of at least 70% on in-class and out-of-class

exercises; and pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.

A specific rubric for grading of essays and other written content is provided

within the syllabus (see Appendices A and B). The student exit exams are given a grade

of 95, 96, or 1101, depending on the class for which the grading professor believes that

essay best represents preparedness. A “95” indicates the student would need to retake

ENGL 0095; a “96” would indicate the student may progress to ENGL 0096 (if currently

enrolled in ENGL 0095) or would need to retake ENGL 0096; and an “1101” would

indicate the student’s readiness to move to ENGL 1101. Note that an “1101-” is a

potential grade to indicate that a student may require additional work to be successful at

the ENGL 1101 level.

As previously indicated, the “goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on

the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year

composition and on the University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition”

(CDE, 2010, p. 30). The same is true of ENGL 1102, which is, however, an “accelerated

introduction to college composition” (p. 33).

Grading for ENGL 1101 and 1102 is published in the textbook and available as a

handout for students and faculty. The syllabus template, however, does specify that at

least 70% of the course grade is to be determined by essay scores (CDE, p. 32). It is

further noted in the syllabus template that either ENGL1101 or 1102 will complete the

first portion of the English Composition component of the General Education Program

(GEP) and prepare the students for ENGL 1105 – Discourse and Argument, the follow-on

course that completes the foundation of English composition. At Shawnee State, as at


most university systems, there is a foundation element of courses collectively referred to

as the General Education Program (GEP). “This group of courses gives students the

opportunity to acquire the characteristics of an educated person” (SSU, 2010, p. 55).

Within the element of English Composition, the “two English composition courses must

be completed prior to taking coursework at the Integrative Level of the GEP” (p. 56),

which is defined as the Cultural Perspectives courses, Ethics, and a Capstone course. The

Foundational Level includes the English Composition, Quantitative Reasoning, Fine and

Performing Arts, Social and Natural Sciences courses (p. 55).

Table 4.2 indicates the requirements at a spectrum of universities throughout

Ohio. These university course requirements were included to evaluate the comparative

nature of the placement into a Freshman English Composition program as indicated by

each university to be part of that school’s General Education Program (GEP). All of the

universities have a Freshman Composition course of some form required as part of their

GEP or core curriculum process. The placement requirement for these courses was some

form of testing, and the score requirements were highly comparable. Some schools have

an extended program with greater interaction between professor and student, much like

SSU’s ENGL 1101 program. Students with higher scores would be able to take a less

intensive program meeting the same requirements, much like SSU’s ENGL 1102. In all

cases, the developmental programs below the freshman level, while meeting credit hours

for determination of full-time students, did not fulfill graduation requirements.

Table 4-3 provides the same basic information as Table 4-2. However, Table 4-3

presents this information against the balance of the accreditation peer group. Shawnee

State University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC), within the


Table 4.2

As of 5/5/2023 10:55:24 PM


Table 4.3

4.3


North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). The peer universities

indicated in Table 4-2 are the NCA’s comparison group for Shawnee State (SSU, 2009).

These universities reflect a similar system of placement programs. All these universities

reflect similar requirements for placement, some by exam and some by evaluation.

Textbooks and any Specific Assignments

“All writing instructors are required to regularly assign readings from the selected

textbooks” (CDE, 2010, p. 6). The CDE briefly addresses the search process for

textbooks and goes into detail to ensure understanding of the necessity for the prescribed

text. Students are cautioned regarding the purchase of prior editions. Five copies of each

textbook for the composition program are, however, on reserve at the library on campus

and may be accessed there during open library hours. Each syllabus must include the

ISBN for required textbooks.

ENGL 0095. Per the guidelines for ENGL 0095, students’ primary task is to

“practice with the basics of written expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling,

and sentence structure. A review of the fundamentals of standard American English

should be demonstrated and actively pursued within the framework of the course. The

exit exam will be a culminating event for these students” (CDE, 2010, p. 18).

The textbook chosen to meet these guidelines for ENGL 0095 is The Writer’s

World: Paragraphs and Essays (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009). The textbook itself is composed

in parts, sections, and chapters. The first part is about “The Writing Process” and

provides an overview in three chapters, which are not broken into sections (Gaetz &

Phadke, 2009, p. iii). The second part deals with “Paragraph Patterns” and has nine

chapters. The third part, “The Essay” has three chapters. The fourth part, “The Editing


Handbook” has nine sections. This text is also available with access to

www.mywritinglab.com, an online support service with additional exercises, but that is

not the copy procured for the SSU program.

Each section has its own theme and multiple chapters. Within the section,

themes address specific elements of composition. An example of this is Section Three,

which has a theme of espionage and a focus on problems with verbs. The chapters in that

section deal with such issues as tense issues, participles, and verb forms that are non-

standard or progressive.

Within the elements addressed are a series of practice exercises of the “circle the

right answer” variety. One example of these exercises within Section Three provides the

verb tense choices, from which the student is to select the appropriate tense form.

Additional practice exercises provide opportunities for students to correct errors and

select from verb choices or fill-in-the-blank with the appropriate form of “to be.” The

chapter concludes with a segment called “Reflect on it” that provides a review worksheet

for the student.

The writing lab that is not purchased with this program allows students to work

additional exercises. It further presents alternative explanations of materials within the

text that may better inform students with different learning styles. The online program

coincides with the text, and the assignments in the online program can also be reviewed

by the teacher. It is not, however, something the Division of Composition and

Developmental English has chosen to use.

As for the text itself, the format is detailed and specific. It would appear that the

acquisition of this knowledge for three hours each week for sixteen weeks would require

As of 5/5/2023 10:55:24 PM


short readings and assignments for each class. Assessments are in minute increments,

allowing for extensive review of each idea. Writing assignments are brief. However, an

important flaw of the structure may be that it does not truly lend itself to specifically

preparing the students for the exit exam or ENGL 0096 where they are expected to write

full paragraphs and essays.

Throughout the course, in all written work that the instructors require, students are

strongly encouraged to remember that writing is a circular process, and they are to

repeatedly review and edit their work for rewriting. While this is good practice in general

writing methods, in the exit exam situation, the students are given a prompt with no

preparation or guidance, and in a two-hour period they are expected to provide a cohesive

and complete essay of about 500 words. In none of the assignments required by the

syllabus are the students challenged to meet this requirement before the exit exam,

though some instructors establish an opportunity to take the Compass placement exam

part way through the program to give the students a sense of the test they will take near

the end. There are an unspecified number of paragraphs and essays to be completed

during the class, but they are only expected to be 350 words long. The primary focus of

the class, however, is on the use of specific parts of grammar.

The stated goals of ENGL 0095 are to prepare for ENGL 0096, learning

appropriate paragraphing and well-developed essays. Also, there is a goal to “review the

fundamentals of Standard American English” (CDE, 2010, p. 19). The assignments in

the textbook seem to serve the purpose of reviewing the fundamentals. However, there

would appear to be little preparation for the written exam that concludes the course.


The entire construct of the exit exam would appear to be incompatible with the

instructional design of the course. Students can take ENGL 0095, attend every class,

adequately compose every document, and still not meet the requirements for placing into

ENGL 0096 or ENGL 1101 if they cannot pass the exam with a sufficient score.

Students could, however, actually score well enough to enter ENGL 1101 from either

ENGL 0095 or ENGL 0096. Therefore, it would seem more appropriate to consider the

exam an entrance exam for ENGL 1101 rather than an exit exam for ENGL 0095 or

ENGL 0096. A student who successfully performs the tasks required in ENGL 0095

should be allowed to move on to ENGL 0096 where the focus moves from paragraphs to

essays. By making the “exit” exam an “entrance” exam (to ENGL 1101), students can

make progress in ENGL 0095, move on to ENGL 0096 and feel as if they are making

satisfactory progress toward the goal of entering the composition sequence sometime in

the near future. It is not appropriate for students to successfully complete assessments

throughout a course then be failed in the course because they are given a form of

assessment that they have not been prepared for during the course.

ENGL 0096. Per the guidelines for ENGL 0096, students’ primary task is to

practice composing paragraphs and to compose and revise a minimum of five essays. A

review of the fundamentals of standard American English should be demonstrated and

actively pursued within the framework of the course. The exit exam will be a

culminating event for these students (CDE, 2010, p. 21). A student who successfully

performs the tasks required in ENGL 0096 should, hopefully, be ready to move on to

ENGL 1101.


The textbook selected to meet the goals of ENGL 0096 is The Writer’s World:

Essays (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009). The Instructor’s Resource Manual (Nichols &

McCartney-Christensen, 2009) provides suggested syllabi for varying lengths of terms.

At SSU, the semester is a sixteen-week term, and the text does provide a syllabus for

sixteen weeks (p. 7). The Resource Manual also provides a summary and a multiple-

choice quiz for each chapter.

This textbook is also composed of parts, sections, and chapters. The first part is

about “The Writing Process” and provides an overview in five chapters, which are not

broken into sections (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009, p. iii). The second part deals with “Essay

Patterns” and has nine chapters. The third part, “More College and Workplace Writing,”

has five chapters. The fourth part, “The Editing Handbook,” has six sections. Each

section has its own theme and multiple chapters.

Within the section, themes are presented along with specific elements of

composition. An example of this is section three, which has a theme of international

trade and a focus on verbs. The chapters deal with such issues as subject-verb agreement,

tenses, and problem verbs.

Within the elements addressed in the text are a series of practice exercises of the

“fill-in-the-blank” variety. In section three, these exercises provide the root verb, to

which the student is to apply the appropriate tense form. Additional practice exercises

provide opportunities for students to correct errors and select from verb choices. The

chapter concludes with a segment called “The Writer’s Room: Topics for Writing” that

provides a couple of prompts for writing assignments. The online writing lab component,


which Shawnee does not require, allows students to have additional practice exercises

and allows instructors to track student progress through email and reports.

The format is straightforward and direct. Perhaps more importantly, as with

ENGL 0095, the structure may not truly lend itself to specifically preparing the students

for the required assessment for moving to the next level of ENGL 1101, which is the exit

exam.

Throughout the writing assignments given, as with ENGL 0095, students are

strongly encouraged to remember that writing is a circular process, and they are to

repeatedly review and edit their work for rewriting. While this is good practice in general

writing methods, the exit exam situation is the same as ENGL 0095, where the students

are given a prompt with no preparation or guidance, and in a two hour period they are

expected to provide a cohesive and complete five paragraph essay of about 500 words.

Nowhere in the syllabus are the students challenged to meet this requirement before the

exit exam.

ENGL 1102. The foundation of college composition is addressed in ENGL 1101

or ENGL 1102. Entering this course requires a placement exam score equivalent to an

ACT English sub-score of 19. The requirement is comparable to other types of program

entrance requirements, such as the PRAXIS, ACT, GRE, or LSAT. Another way of

considering the ENGL 0095 and 0096 coursework is to think of them as courses meant to

prepare the students for passing this entrance requirement.

The textbooks required for ENGL 1101 and 1102 are identical. The Longman

Concise Companion: Shawnee State 2nd Edition (Anson, Schwegler, & Muth, 2010) is the

handbook required for either of these courses and also the following course, ENGL 1105.


Both ENGL 1101 and 1102 use The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack.

The ValPack contains both The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (Reid, 2011) and

Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader (Reid, 2007) . These texts can be purchased

with access to www.mycomplab.com. This is a resource to provide exercises, tutorials,

and online assignment management tools. It is not included in the ValPack procured for

this course. The online laboratory program allows for additional insights to the essays

provided in the text and a series of questions to help students explore new elements of

writing.

Both ENGL 1101 and 1102 are programmed to provide a necessary introduction

to college composition. The difference is in pace and expected performance. The ENGL

1102 course is a three-unit course, which requires an ACT sub-score of 24 to enter. To

enter the five unit ENGL 1101, the student must have successfully passed ENGL 0096

(which includes passage of the exit exam at the 1101 level) or have an ACT sub-score of

at least 19.

There are other differences and similarities in the requirements of the two courses.

For example, students in ENGL 1101 are given an instructional period by one of the

research librarians and a tour of the library facilities. While this library tutorial program

is not required of students in ENGL 1102, an online tutorial may be assigned. While both

will use the same rubric for grading standards (Anson et al., 2010, p. A21-A28), students

in ENGL 1101 write at least six formal papers of at least 750 words. Students in ENGL

1102 write at least four formal papers of approximately 1250 words. Two of the formal

papers written by students in both classes will be composed using academic research and


citation methods. Also, students in both classes must write a minimum of 6000 words of

information responses, journals, etc.

The professors in ENGL 1101/1102 have some discretion in the ways in which

they administer the requirements of the program, using the tools provided. Each

professor has her own method of implementing the tools, but there is a sample syllabus

provided as a recommended method. It is the method described within this sample

syllabus that will be analyzed here.

The Longman Concise Companion (LCC) (2010) is a standard rhetoric, research

guide, and writing handbook for collegiate level composition issues. The first four parts

contain general writing guidelines detailing methods of exploring new ideas and ways to

present information. Each part is broken into chapters, which are broken into sections

and subsections. Each chapter has a variety of exercises for students to practice the skills

elements provided in that chapter.

The center part, part five, is about “Documenting Sources” and provides five

chapters. The first of these five chapters is chapter twenty-four, “Five Serious

Documentation Problems.” This chapter is an excellent and thorough presentation of

errors and their solutions. It provides references to other chapters within the text that

explore the issues in detail and provides exercises to strengthen student understanding.

The other four chapters specifically indicate guidelines for varying documentation styles

and include an example paper for both the Modern Language Association (MLA) style

and the American Psychological Association (APA) style formats. The other styles are

the Chicago (CMS) and Scientific (CSE) styles. The edges of the pages for part five are

in different colors to provide ready access and reference to each reference style.


The latter half of the book, parts six through ten, details grammar components.

Starting with a chapter on “Ten Serious Errors,” the book progresses through editing

methods, sentence problems, word choice, punctuation, and closes with a part for

proofreading. Each chapter also has a series of exercises to reinforce the concepts

presented. This book provides detailed references and methods of instruction for the

faculty who use it as a teaching tool.

In the sample syllabus, LCC is presented for selected chapters as homework. The

sample syllabus has a “Grammar Review Topic” for each week, and the assignments

from LCC reflect those topics. In doing so, the syllabus requires the students to move

through the text and become very familiar with it. This provides an advantage to the

students who do these homework assignments, as students will use this text in ENGL

1105 and may use this resource in any other class where writing a paper is a requirement.

This text helps students understand Standard Written English grammar and provides a

guide for more common writing formats, including MLA and APA.

The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (PHG) (Reid, 2011) is the anthology

textbook provided for the course and is accompanied by a Pocket Reader entitled

Purposes (Reid, 2007). The text, PHG, proceeds in chapters and while each chapter is

broken into elemental sections, they are not numbered, merely named. Most of the

chapters address the writing process with a section of varied “Techniques” that are

analyzed and presented. That section is followed by “Warming Up: Journal Exercises”

and then the elements of “Choosing a Subject,” “Collecting,” “Shaping,” “Drafting,” and

“Revising.” A “Peer Response” element follows, encouraging the students to learn


collaboratively and grow as a group. The chapter closes with a “Postscript on the Writing

Process,” giving a couple of example essays for students to read and evaluate.

Throughout PHG, sample essays are provided that use the techniques represented.

Additionally, the chapters frequently model the drafting and revision process by showing

original writings, marks and comments, and finished work. Chapters also provide

vocabulary sections and “Questions for Writing and Discussion.”

Within Chapter Thirteen, “Researching,” specific information using MLA and

APA citation styles are presented, as is an MLA sample document. The appendix

presents an essay specifically titled “Writing Under Pressure.” This document is

exceedingly valuable to students and could well be presented in the SSU ENGL 0095 and

0096 courses as part of the preparation for taking the exit (entrance) exam.

The Purposes text gives a variety of essays that are labeled by paragraph. This

provides easy reference for in-class or on-line discussion. The text itself does not line up

cohesively with the PHG text but can certainly be aligned by the professor to work

together with the PHG text. The essays selected for Purposes are eclectic and dynamic.

Students find them to be opinionated, making them good choices for argumentative

papers. However, the ENGL 1101 and 1102 courses are not intended to be argumentative

in nature. Perhaps, therefore, that text would be better suited to the ENGL 1105 course

where argumentation is presented and elucidated.

Throughout the semester, students write a number of formally cited research

papers. The greater number of slightly shorter papers in ENGL 1101 gives the students

opportunity to embrace feedback and show growth. Both courses require two extensively

researched and documented papers, generally required at mid-term and end-term. In


preparation, students are encouraged to treat writing as a circular process, reviewing their

own work and that of others.

The materials provided are appropriate and collegiate in nature. While some

elements may seem to be better suited for ENGL 0096 or ENGL 1105, they can certainly

be used for the requirements of ENGL 1101 and 1102. To some extent, the coursework

presented in the syllabus could be overwhelming to the freshman college student.

Between extensive reading assignments, weekly essays, discussion board elements, and

the big research papers, students in these courses have constant assignments to complete

in an effort to enhance writing skills. The rigor of this course encourages students to

understand that college is a challenge and allows them to structure their class work

accordingly.

The structure of ENGL 1101—providing five hours of class time per week—

gives the students plenty of guidance. However, one important weak spot is noted.

While effort is made to place composition courses into computer-enabled classrooms,

SSU currently has too few computer labs to do so. Teaching this five-hour course

without extensive in-class writing time does a distinct disservice to the students who take

it. They cannot get the kind of feedback and structure needed, for which they were

originally placed into ENGL 1101. Students placed into ENGL 1101 are those who

achieved a 19-23 on the ACT or equivalent score on the SAT or COMPASS test or those

who successfully completed ENGL 0096 with an exit exam score of 1101. These

students have good basic skills but still need consistent structure and feedback, which

they can most effectively receive in a computer laboratory classroom.


Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy

“Shawnee State is committed to providing education that fosters competence in

oral and written communication” (SSU, 2007, p. 7). This sentence, taken from the SSU

mission statement found within the university’s catalog, demonstrates the university’s

recognition of and dedication to the development of effective writing skills. The English

composition program is an integrated part of the University plan to “improve student

proficiency levels in basic knowledge and skills.”

Shawnee State University falls under the guidance of the Ohio Board of Regents.

That governing body “has developed a statewide policy to facilitate movement of

students and transfer credits from one Ohio public college or university to another” (SSU,

2007, p. 16). The English Composition program has been designed to meet or exceed the

standards of any Ohio public college or university in order to facilitate this transfer

agreement. To that end, the goals and objectives “are based on the Council of Writing

Program Administrators’ Outcomes statement for First-Year Composition and on The

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition” (CDE, 2010, p. 30 &

34).

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods

As per the guidelines published by the Department, faculty members have some

flexibility in teaching styles and classroom protocols. While the specifics of enumerated

essays, word/page counts, research, and publication styles are not debatable, the actual

methods of pursuing those achievements are within the purview of the various

instructors. One example of this flexibility is in attendance. While the “attendance policy

must not contradict the SSU Excused Absence Policy . . . each faculty member evaluates


the importance of student class attendance based upon the specific nature of the course in

question” (CDE, 2010, p. 11-12). There may be times when some students will be sent to

procure materials from the library. In fact, during the ENGL 1101 term, the instructors

are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the library staff for two sessions—an in-class

session on using the library research tools and a tour of the library facility. The ENGL

1102 program, while not allowing in-class time for these programs, encourages the use of

the on-line tutorial provided by the library staff to enhance research functionality. Some

faculty members find it valuable to use class periods to schedule specific conference

times with students and will direct non-conferencing students to other activities.

In each syllabus is an explanation and caution regarding plagiarism. Further, the

syllabus information specifically sets forth a method of handling plagiarism issues. The

degree of penalty begins at the professorial level. Professors may assign a grade of “F”

on the paper and allow students to resubmit or not as a matter of professorial discretion.

If a professor believes it appropriate, an “F” in the course may be assigned with the

concurrence of the Director of the Composition Program. A “formal charge of academic

misconduct” is assigned by decision of the Chair of the Department of English and

Humanities (CDE, 2010, p. 32).

Each syllabus also contains a statement relating to the recognition of the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the method for providing needed services.

At SSU, every student is given every opportunity to excel. To that end, the Disability

Services Center provides the necessary documentation and edification for students and

faculty. It is specifically and appropriately noted in this section that documenting needs

and presenting that information to faculty members is a student responsibility.


Other Program-Related Information

Shawnee State University provides an excellent and extensive set of tutoring

options for students. Three separate facilities provide tutoring and computer resources

for English composition students. These are the Student Success Center, the Student

Success Services (TRIO) Center, and the Reading and Writing Center. All tutoring is at

no cost to the students. Some of these services are scheduled, and others are drop-in

services. There are computer labs available for students in several buildings on campus,

and these are generally staffed by paid personnel who can assist with computer-related

issues. The English and Humanities Department “purchases an institutional subscription

to NoodleTools® each year” (CDE, 2010, p. 14), which allows an online program for

citations which has been reviewed and approved by the university. These resources allow

Shawnee students to have every opportunity to grow, learn, and perform within their

English classes.


Summary, Discussion, and Application

Newberry & Keuker (2008) authored the Vivayic Whitepaper on Curricula

Analysis that specifically leans toward “learned curriculum (Analysis is concerned with

measuring the content and level at which learners enact the performance expectations in a

targeted context).” They broke this process into steps and determined that in following

these steps, curricula would be reviewed for both rigor and relevance. These steps will

be used to guide the discussion of the analysis of the aforementioned courses.

Step one was to define a framework for measuring performance expectations

(Newberry & Kueker, 2008, p. 9). The general presentiment is that each curriculum

should define its own framework for measuring performance. The composition

curriculum does present a framework for measuring performance, but at the 0095 and

0096 levels, it has confusing elements.

In ENGL 0095 and 0096, students are guided by grading rubrics that help them

identify the critical elements of acceptable papers. While these rubrics are formulated to

put an emphasis on basic grammar skills in ENGL 0095 and on overall composition skills

for ENGL 0096, both are used in a similar manner. Formative assessments occur in the

process of reviewing, editing, and rewriting assignments up until the exit exam. This

creates a conflicted situation where students are trained to write short pieces – paragraphs

of perhaps 100 words and essays of up to 350 words over a period of several one-hour

sessions—according to one performance framework. The exit exam presented to students

from both classes is identical. At that point, the students are exposed to a summative

assessment that introduces a different performance framework—one that requires writing

skills that will allow them to produce a five-paragraph, 500-word essay completed in one,


two-hour session. This exam would be more appropriately identified as an entrance exam

for ENGL 1101.

For ENGL 1101 and 1102, the grading rubrics for writing assignments are

published in the textbook for the course (LCC). Each faculty member is directed to

include specific references to the rubrics within the syllabus for each course. Though

faculty may apply varying weight standards to various work requirements, all courses

state clearly that a minimum of 70% of the students’ score comes directly from grading

writing assignments. This requirement would mean that student writing of essays,

journals, and research papers, are the primary framework for measuring performance in

these two classes.

Step two is to apply the curriculum analysis process to analyze the rigor and

relevance of all existing course objectives. “Performance objectives for the lesson were

evaluated first followed by a review of the lesson’s assessment objectives” (Newberry &

Kueker, 2008, p. 10). This is an issue in which the composition curriculum has areas for

improvement.

The objectives are vague, though the goal appears clear. The stated goal for each

class is to prepare for the next level of instruction. However, the supplied rubrics do not

detail the skills needed to achieve that goal nor do they indicate differing expectations

with regard to the specific objectives of each course. Further, the exit (entrance) exam is

presented as a final assessment of ENGL 0095 and ENGL 0096 when it is more directly

related to the entrance requirement for ENGL 1101. Because this exam is a measure of

skills that are not noted objectives of either of the 0095 or 0096 courses a mismatch is


created between class objectives and class assessments, making it difficult for the student

to assess his own progress.

Step three is identifying content for further analysis (Newberry & Kueker, 2008,

p. 14). By this, the authors mean that each element of content is weighed against any

curricular standards that are given. However, this point must be developed with an

understanding of the complexities of the subject. Writing, even academic writing, is a

reflection of the author’s whole being. As such, teaching it, guiding it, and grading it are

not as straightforward as whether or not “2 + 2 = 4.”

The content for these courses is dictated by the need to “foster competence in oral

and written communication” (SSU, 2007, p. 7). Presumably, by competence, the

meaning of “Sufficiency of qualification; capacity to deal adequately with a subject”

should apply (Oxford English Dictionary [OED], 2011). Still, this is a vague standard on

an ambiguous topic. For this, the ENGL 0095 and 0096 programs seem to be better

suited, yet less well adapted. While the skill of writing can certainly be broken into

rhetorical, grammatical, and compositional components, as an entity, the best writing is a

collective. It is more directly taught and assessed where the early specific elements

apply. To determine if a sentence has a subject and a verb and is therefore not a fragment

is an objective requirement. To determine if an essay expresses the intent of the writer is

a more amorphous evaluation.

This is a major weakness in terms of the program’s ability to address the

curricular standard of “competence…in written communication.” The tasks directed by

the professors to fulfill the specific requirements of the syllabi can be sufficiently

assessed. However, the exit (entrance) exam does not logically follow from the tasks


imposed. What may be needed is a revision of the content and assignments of these

courses in order to better align with the requirements of the exit (entrance) exam and with

the rubric that is used to assess students’ writing. For example, the essay presented as a

model in the Appendix of the textbook for ENGL 1101 should, perhaps, be presented to

those students in ENGL 0095/0096, and the Longman Concise Companion might be a

textbook well suited for those students as well. This text would better prepare

developmental students for the task of writing comprehensive essays, which is the critical

standard that allows them to enter the foundational level English classes and proceed in

their college careers. In doing so, this program would provide a more rigorous challenge

to the students, better preparing them for the content challenges of ENGL 1101.

The ENGL 1101 and 1102 programs are better suited to address the curricular

standard of fostering competence in written communication. The course syllabi seem to

outline the requirements more thoroughly. The grading rubric provided in the syllabi and

the LCC text is properly detailed and makes an excellent teaching tool and assessment

tool. The Reid text adequately serves the purpose of providing key content to meet the

standards detailed in the grading rubric.

Step four is analyzing the relative level of rigor and relevance (Newberry &

Kueker, 2008, p. 16). Newberry and Kueker rely on Willard Daggett’s 2005 work on the

issue and determine that

Here, rigor is defined as the level of cognitive demand, or the quantity and quality

of the cognitive processes, required to complete an instructional or assessment

task. Relevance, on the other hand, is defined as the degree to which the context


in which the content is to be applied, or transferred, approximates the real-world

(p. 6).

The only way to learn to write is to write. The extensive writing requirements of

all courses presented to freshmen at SSU provide ample opportunity for students to write,

to learn, to review, to edit, and to write again. This creates some level of rigor, in that

students are regularly engaged in the act of writing and are being assessed by a rubric that

establishes expectations for their finished products. Students who participate fully in each

level of the program would be hard-pressed not to grow in writing ability through the

process; this is particularly true of ENGL 1101 and 1102.

Relevance, on the other hand, is somewhat lacking in the developmental courses,

due to the fact of the mismatch between instructional content and assignments when

compared with the exit (entrance) exam, which measures different skills than they have

been taught. The essays presented in the textbook for ENGL 1101 should, perhaps, be

presented to those students in ENGL 0095/0096, and the Longman Concise Companion is

a textbook well suited for those students as well. In doing so, the Developmental English

program would provide a more rigorous challenge to the students, better preparing them

for the challenges of ENGL 1101 and would provide more relevant instruction for the

exit (entrance) exam.

Recommendations

The program presented in the ENGL 0095/0096 course framework would perhaps

be better served by presenting these programs in a more compressed format using the exit

exam structure as a guide during the second half of the program. Instead of a sixteen-

week term for each, an eight-week term may be adequate and could enhance student


understanding of and satisfaction with the developmental program by moving them

through it with less tedium. During the last few weeks before the end of the term, the

students would then be drilled in the compressed essay format rather than the review

format that is currently encouraged.

Another recommendation is that the current exit exam for ENGL 0095 and ENGL

0096 be presented as an entrance exam for ENGL 1101. This would allow students to

train and prepare much as they would for any other standardized test and not be

prevented from passing the first developmental course due to lack of preparation for the

exit exam. The requirement to pass the exam could be removed from ENGL 0095 and an

alternative assessment geared for parts of speech, sentence structure, and paragraphing

could be implemented. This would better match the summative assessment of the ENGL

0095 course to the objectives. To make a similar improvement in ENGL 0096, the

objectives that guide the final weeks of the course should prepare students for the

placement test for ENGL 1101, thus making course content more appropriate to the

critical summative assessment that allows students to enter the foundational level of the

GEP.

Revision of the course objectives for the developmental courses would also

improve the curriculum. As indicated in the syllabus in Appendix A, one of the

objectives for ENGL 0095 is to “practice composing well-developed paragraphs.” There

should be a separate rubric for assessment of these paragraphs that matches the sub-

objectives of this objective, including:

o “include a clearly expressed topic sentence;

o Be supported by relevant details;


o Be coherent and unified;

o And contain a variety of sentence length and structures.”

The rubric for passing the essay assignments should align with the specific

objectives noted in the syllabus and should be aligned with whatever is used to evaluate

the exit exam at the 0095 level. While the rubric in the syllabus and the objectives are

currently similar, they could be much “cleaner” by specifically aligning the following

objectives to the rubric and/or the rubric to the objectives.

o “Compose and revise well-developed essays. The final draft of each essay

must:

demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing

ideas;

address a limited, focused topic;

be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs;

target an appropriate audience;

reflect a basic understanding of the fundamentals of standard

punctuation, spelling, and mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.”

If there are differing expectations for passing 0095 vs. passing 0096, there should

be a different rubric for grading essays and different objectives (that align with the

rubrics) for the 0095 course. The rubric and objectives should be developmentally lower

than the ones for 0096, so that they provide a clear set of prerequisite skills that will lead

to success in 0096. Students should, of course, then receive instruction that prepares


them specifically for the assessment expectations that will be expected on the 0095 exit

exam.

For ENGL 0096, as per Appendix B, the same issue exists with regard to

objectives/rubric. The rubric for passing writing assignments should coincide with the

specific objectives noted in the syllabus and should be aligned with whatever is used to

evaluate the exit/entrance exam. While the rubric in the syllabus and the objectives are

currently similar, they could be much “cleaner” by specifically aligning the following

objectives to the rubric:

o “Compose and revise a minimum of five essays. The final draft of each of

these essays must:

Demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing

ideas.

Address a limited, focused topic.

Be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs.

Target an appropriate audience.

Include sentences that are tied together cohesively.

Include various types of sentences.

Reflect an understanding of the fundamentals of standard

punctuation, spelling, and mechanics.

Be at least 350 words long.” (This still presents a major problem.

Clearly they should be writing at least one or two 500-word essays

similar to the exit exam and being assessed by the same rubric used

to evaluate the exit exam.)


The final objective for the course is “Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.” Taking the

exit exam is obviously not adequate; students need to pass the exit exam. In the

“Determining the Course Grade” section, there should be an extended description of how

this process works, including an explanation of what rubric is used for the exit exam.

Preferably, the rubric used to assess their exit (entrance) exam should be the same one

used to assess at least one of the essays written for class assignments. In fact, it well may

be that two rubrics need to be included in this course, one for the preliminary essays that

are 350 words long and another that is specific to a final essay(s) and the exit (entrance)

exam. This gives students the opportunity to grow their skills in the early essays while

developing toward the critical skills needed for exit (entrance) exam. They need exposure to the

final rubric, through the writing of at least one practice essay, so that they will know how the exit

exam is going to be written and assessed. Hopefully this structure would also result in instructors

providing the instruction that prepares students for the summative assessment that determines

entrance into the ENGL 1101/1102 foundational course.

Perhaps ENGL 1101 could have a lesser requirement for entrance. Even a point

or two less on the ACT exam would allow more students into the ENGL 1101 course.

Despite a seeming reduction in rigor for the course, it would not diminish the curriculum,

but challenge those students to meet the requirements. The extra two hours per week

would allow for students who have an ACT English sub-score of 17 to have the

supervision and structure they need to succeed at the college level. Students who achieve

a score equivalent to an ACT English sub-score of 22 could place into ENGL 1102.

Those students who require the more basic writing instruction could still take the

remedial classes as needed.


Summary

Shawnee State University is nestled near the intersection of the Scioto and Ohio

Rivers in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. Adult illiteracy is an issue that

needs to be and is consistently addressed in this community, and the efforts of students to

seek higher education is always to be applauded. Some students, however, are simply not

ready for college, eligible though they may be. While in some states, community

colleges provide venues for these students, the geographical region that SSU serves does

not have resources of that nature. Therefore, it has become incumbent upon Shawnee

State University to fill the gap. The provision of a developmental English sequence has

been the only option available for filling that gap.

Curriculum analysis has been used in this paper to identify how well the

developmental English sequence is doing in developing college readiness for students

who currently lack the critical writing skills. Curriculum analysis is not an exact science.

It is well and good to state that a goal exists and that a curriculum does or does not meet

that goal. However, while a curriculum may meet a goal, it may not meet it as well as the

students deserve. That is a more amorphous issue and one that deserves attention.

The existing curriculum for ENGL 0095/0096 is lengthy and detailed. However,

it does not seem to truly meet the prescribed goal of preparing the students for the next

level of class. As mentioned above, a more compressed version directed toward that goal

might be another way of creating improvement in the curriculum. Taking an eight-week

program would allow students to get the information they need, while not consuming as

much time as the current format. This would present the opportunity to provide students


instruction that is more closely aligned with the skills needed for the critical exit

(entrance) exam.

The tools presently incorporated in the ENGL 1101/1102 curriculum would also

be applicable to the ENGL 0095/0096 curriculum, particularly the Longman Concise

Companion. This would provide better preparation for the placement exams, were the

students writing longer essays more routinely.

Because Shawnee State University has open enrollment, there is a requirement to

provide basic, fundamental instruction in English composition and grammar to some

students. However, a revamping of the program could be beneficial. For those who

place into basic writing and/or mechanics, it is clear that emphasis needs to be on

achieving the specific goals set forth—preparing for the exit (entrance) exam and ENGL

1101. The Longman Concise Companion can be used for those students, who can then

keep that text throughout their academic career and continue to use it. The text currently

in use for ENGL1101/1102 should be considered for reassignment to the course in ENGL

1105 -- Discourse and Argument, and another text considered for the basic Discourse and

Composition program. The goals outlined for ENGL 1101/1102 could be better met with

a different text.

The “rite of passage” of freshman composition is a critical piece of college life.

That is unlikely to change, and to do so would be a tremendous loss to the educated

populace. However, the composition sequence at Shawnee State, in its continuous effort

to meet the constantly changing needs of the ever-expanding student populace, may need

to consider changing the qualifying ACT requirements of ENGL 1101/1102 . This would

allow for some students who currently place into remedial coursework to place into


ENGL 1101 instead. These students would have the extra time and supervision to grow

within the college writing program, yet would have the same rigorous requirements of all

other ENGL 1101 students.

Shawnee is a growing and forward thinking University that is somewhat mired in

its open enrollment program and its history as a two-year college. Perhaps the

compression of the program to an eight-week term would allow the students to receive

the help needed without delaying degree progress. The course could certainly be

repeated as necessary for those students who need the extra time to fully grasp these

constructs.

The intent is to help the students succeed, and the developmental English courses

are designed to help students do so. However, it is critical that the curriculum remain

under scrutiny to be sure that the courses are accomplishing what they are designed to do.

The fact that these courses are frequently taught by adjunct faculty requires a very clear

set of objectives and assessments that effectively guide the student toward placement in

the foundational level English courses. This curriculum analysis has been completed to

identify ways to make improvements to the instruction and assessment carried out within

the current developmental English courses.


References

Anson, C.M., Schwegler, R.A., & Muth, M.F. (2010). Longman concise companion. New

York: Longman.

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college

remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-900.

Bahr, P. R. (2010). Revisiting the efficacy of postsecondary remediation: The

moderating effects of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher

Education, 33(2). 177-205.

Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to

success. Future of Children, 20(1), 109-133.

Burlison, J., Murphy C., & Dwyer W. (2009). Evaluation of the motivated strategies for

learning questionnaire for predicting academic performance in college students of

varying scholastic aptitude. (Report). College Student Journal. Project Innovation

(Alabama) 1313-1316.

Callahan, M.K., & Chumney, D. (2009). 'Write like college': How remedial writing

courses at a community college and a research university position 'at-risk' students

in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 1619-1664.

Carey, K. (2010). Why we need a 'race to the top' for higher education. Chronicle of

Higher Education, 56(26), A30-A30.

Chen, L. (2010). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized

diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers and Education, 56(2011),

289-299.


Cline, Z,, Bissell, J., Hafner, A., & Katz, M. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap.

Leadership, 37(2), 30-33.

Composition and Developmental English Committee. (2010). Handbook of composition

and developmental English. Unpublished manuscript, Department of English and

the Humanities, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

Conley, D.T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher

Education, 144(WI), 3-13.

Competence. (2010). In Oxford English (Online) Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37567.

Cowden, P. (2010). Preparing college students with moderate learning disabilities with

the tools for higher level success. College Student Journal, 44(2), 230-233.

Gaetz, L., & Phadke, S. (Ed.). (2009). The writer's world: Essays. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

George, M. (2010). Ethics and motivation in remedial mathematics education.

Community College Review, 31(1), 82-92.

Gewertz, C. (2010). Proposed standards go public. Education Week, 29(25), 1-15.

Holsendolph, E. (2005). Building a 'culture of effort'. Black Issues in Higher Education,

5(22), 30-33.

Horn, C., & McCoy, Z. (2009). Remedial testing and placement in community colleges.

Community college Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 510-526.

Jacobsen, E. (2006). Higher placement standards increase course success but reduce

program completions. Journal of General Education, 55(2), 138-159.


Jenkins, D., Smith Jaggars, S., & Roksa, J. (2009). Promoting gatekeeper course success

among community college students needing remediation [pp. 1-73]. (Adobe DE

332_735), Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=714

Katsinas, S.G, & Bush, V.B. (2006). Assessing what matters: Improving college

readiness 50 years beyond Brown. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 30, 771-786.

McGann, M. (1947). Diagnostic testing and remedial teaching for common errors in

mechanics of English made by college freshmen. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 38(8), 499-503.

Newberry, P., & Kueker D. (2008). How do you recognize a rigorous and relevant

curriculum?: A method for analyzing rigor and relevance in science and

mathematics curricula. Published Whitepaper. Vivayic, Inc, Lincoln, NE.

Retrieved from http://vivayic.com/whitepapers/curricula_analysis.pdf.

Nichols, J., & McCartney-Christensen, H. (2009). Instructor’s resource manual: The

writer’s world: Essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Ohio Board of Regents. (2007). English expectations for college readiness. Proceedings

of the K-16 Seamless Transition. Retrieved from

http://regents.ohio.gov/collegereadiness/policies/EngCollegeRediness07.pdf.

Olson, L. (2006). Calif. high schoolers get preview of college-placement test. Education

Week, 25(33), 27-27.

Perkins-Gough, D. (2008). Unprepared for college. Educational Leadership, 66(3), 88-

89. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Reid, S. (2011). The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers. Boston: Prentice.


Reid, S. (Ed.). (2007). Purposes: A prentice hall pocket reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Shawnee State University (2010). The Placement Program: English Placement.

Unpublished manuscript. Office of Admissions. Shawnee State University.

Portsmouth, OH. Retrieved from

http://www.shawnee.edu/off/adms/placement.html.

Shawnee State University (2007). University college: Placement testing. Unpublished

manuscript, Office of Admissions, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

Retrieved from http://catalog.shawnee.edu/.

Suddick, D. (1982). A re-examination of the use of the test of standard written English

and resulting placement for older upper-division and master’s level students.

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 42, 367-369.

West Virginia Department of Education, Department of Educator Certification. (2010).

Curriculum analysis report (CAR) reviewer's guide. Charleston, WV: West

Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educator/docs/CAR.pdf.

Yang, Y. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial

reading instruction. Computers & Education, 05(16). 1193-1201.

Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M., & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and

academic success in college. Research in Higher Education. 46(6), 677-706.


Index to Tables

Table Description Page

1.1 Fall 2010 course seats.........................................................................................9

1.2 Spring 2010 course seats.....................................................................................9

4.1 English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University........................33

4.2 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within the state of Ohio........38

4.3 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within accreditation peers.....39


Index to Appendices

Title Description Page

A Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095........................................................................72

B Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096........................................................................80

C Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101........................................................................89

D Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102........................................................................96


Appendix A

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0095

Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

Last Updated August 2010

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

Prerequisite: ACT English sub-score of 10 or lower or equivalent.

Required Text

Gaetz, Lynne, and Suneeti Phadke. The Writer’s World: Paragraphs & Essays. 2nd ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print. ISBN 13: 978-0-13-

615218-7

Catalogue Description: English 0095 provides intensive practice with the basics of

written expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling, and sentence structure.

Emphasis on the use of standard English.

Placement in English 0095: SSU uses ACT English sub-scores (or other entrance exam

scores) to place students in English 0095. Studies indicate that there is a strong


correlation between writing ability and ACT English sub-scores. Nevertheless, the ACT

is not a writing test, and some students are better writers than their ACT scores indicate.

Therefore, students who believe that their ACT English sub-scores are not indicative of

their writing abilities are allowed to petition to take the Writing Skills Placement Exam

before registering for English 0095; students who score well on this essay exam may be

allowed to skip English 0095.

Course Goals & Objectives: The primary goal of English 0095 is to prepare students for

English 0096. In order to reach this goal, students will:

Gain understanding that writing involves a process of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting

Practice composing well-developed paragraphs. The final draft of each paragraph must:

include a clearly expressed topic sentence;

be supported by relevant details;

be coherent and unified;

and contain a variety of sentence lengths and structures.

Compose and revise well-developed essays. The final draft of each essay must:

demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas;

address a limited, focused topic;

be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs;

target an appropriate audience;

reflect a basic understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.


Review the fundamentals of Standard American English. This review may involve

lecture, discussion, in-class activities, and out-of-class exercises.

Improve their ability to edit their own work and correct punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

Take the English 0095 Exit Exam.

Keep a writing portfolio. This portfolio must include all of the work completed in

English 0095 this semester.

Policies:

Portfolio: Save a copy of every essay: rough drafts, revisions, and final drafts. Be sure to

save a backup copy of your final drafts on disk as well.

Accommodation for Disabilities: In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

compromise the integrity of the academic program.) Examples of documented disabilities

include physical, psychiatric, and/or learning impairments that substantially limit one or

more major life activities of the student. Students seeking academic adjustments or

accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

Disability Services, located in the Student Success Center, 1st Floor Massie Hall (740/351-

3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the Coordinator, students are

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing

without acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted


material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that are not

cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone else wrote or

one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be unintentional as well as

intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be sure to credit and cite sources

properly. If you have any questions about proper documentation, please speak with me.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any instances of

plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the chair of the Department of

English and Humanities. The chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will then

determine whether circumstances warrant a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth

in the SSU Student Handbook. A student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing

grade for the assignment and may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student

will receive an F—not a W—for the course.

Grading:

Pass/No-Credit Policy: English 0095 is a Pass/No-Credit class. You will not receive a

traditional letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) on your grade report or on your transcript. Instead,

those of you who successfully complete the course and who become eligible to enroll in

English 0096 will receive Ps (Pass); those who need more writing practice before

enrolling in English 0096 will receive NCs (No Credit). Neither a P nor an NC will have

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

In order to receive a P in English 0095, you must:

Earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on a majority of your required paragraphs and

essays;


Earn an average of at least 70% on all out-of-class exercises;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all in-class exercises, AND

Pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.

Scoring of Essays: The following rubric indicates how your English 0095 essays will be

scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory

Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

idea.

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

appropriate.

Lacks a thesis or

controlling idea.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in

paragraph construction.

Contains flawed


Expresses developed Expresses some Expresses ideas which are


ideas. All or most of the

paragraphs are long

enough to indicate that

the writer has considered

each subtopic.

developed ideas, but other

ideas may be

underdeveloped.

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons,

comma splices, non-

parallelism, mixed

constructions).

May have as many as 10

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more


Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and

pronoun shifts,

apostrophe errors,

misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional

uses of nonstandard

grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

Exit Exam: Your Exit Exam will be read by two or three members of the English faculty.

Rather than awarding traditional letter grades on the final exam, each reader will give the

exam a 95 (indicating that the writing is still at the English 0095 level), a 96 (indicating


that the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 0096) or an 1101

(indicating that the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 1101).

Appeal Process: Most students who are earning Ps at the time of the final exam are able

to score well enough on the Exit Exam that they can move to English 0096. However, in

rare instances, extenuating circumstances may cause a student to fail. There is an appeal

process for students who fail the Exit Exam:

The student must present his/her writing portfolio to the instructor.

The student must then discuss the issue with the instructor, explaining why s/he feels the

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

After hearing the student’s plea and examining the content of the portfolio, the instructor

will decide whether or not to pursue the appeal on behalf of the student.

If the instructor agrees that an appeal should be made, then the instructor will contact the

Director of Composition, who will make one of the following decisions:

To allow the student to take a retest.

To submit the original exam to members of the English department for re-evaluation.

To allow the student to pass the course based on the strength of the student’s portfolio.

To deny the student’s request. In this case, the student may follow standard university

procedure on grade appeals and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and

Humanities department.

If the instructor disagrees with the student and does not choose to appeal on the behalf of

the student, then the student may follow standard university procedure on grade appeals

and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department.


Students are NOT to appeal an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student

Success Center.


Appendix B

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0096

Last Updated July 2010

Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

Prerequisite. ACT English sub-score of 11-18 or equivalent.

Required Text.

Gaetz, Lynne, and Suneeti Phadke. The Writer’s World: Essays. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print. ISBN 13: 978-0-13-243722-6.

Catalogue Description. English 0096 provides practice in the process of writing and

revising paragraphs and short essays. Standard organizational patterns for paragraphs

and essays are required with an emphasis on the use of standard English.

Placement in English 0096. SSU uses ACT English subscores (or other entrance

exam scores) to place students in English 0096. Studies indicate that there is a


strong correlation between writing ability and ACT English subscores. Most

students who earn 11-18 on the English ACT subscore write papers that:

Lack planning or revision;

Lack controlling ideas/theses;

Indicate that the writers have difficulty answering prompts and/or following directions;

Contain flawed paragraph construction;

Express ideas which are severely underdeveloped;

Have major sentence errors (fragments, run-ons, comma splices, non-parallelism, mixed

constructions);

Demonstrate little sense of audience awareness (through the use of inappropriate

tone/diction, slang, or inappropriate words);

Or contain many consistent and interfering uses of non-standard grammar (including

subject/verb agreement problems, tense and pronoun shifts, apostrophe errors, and

misspellings).

Nevertheless, the ACT is not a writing test, and some students are better writers than their

ACT scores indicate. Therefore, students who believe that their ACT English subscores

are not indicative of their writing abilities are allowed to petition to take the Writing

Skills Placement Exam before registering for English 0096; students who score well on

this essay exam may be allowed to skip English 0096.

Course Goals & Objectives. The primary goal of English 0096 is to prepare students

for English 1101. In order to reach this goal, students will:

Practice composing paragraphs.


Compose and revise a minimum of five essays. The final draft of each of these essays

must:

Demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas.

Address a limited, focused topic.

Be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs.

Target an appropriate audience.

Include sentences that are tied together cohesively.

Include various types of sentences.

Reflect an understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

Be at least 350 words long.

Review the fundamentals of Standard American English. This review may involve

lecture, discussion, in-class activities, and out-of-class exercises.

Improve their ability to edit their own work and correct punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.

Keep a writing portfolio. This portfolio must include all of the work completed in

English 0096 this semester.

Policies.

Portfolio: Save a copy of every essay and related materials (including rough drafts,

revisions, and final drafts). Be sure to save electronic backup copies of your final drafts

as well. I will collect your portfolio at the end of the semester.


Accommodation for Disabilities: In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

compromise the integrity of the academic program.) Examples of documented disabilities

include physical, psychiatric, and/or learning impairments that substantially limit one or

more major life activities of the student. Students seeking academic adjustments or

accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

Disability Services, located in the Student Success Center, 1st Floor Massie Hall (740/351-

3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the Coordinator, students are

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing

without acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that are not

cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone else wrote or

one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be unintentional as well as

intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be sure to credit and cite sources

properly. If you have any questions about proper documentation, please speak with your

instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any instances of

plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the chair of the Department of

English and Humanities. The chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will then

determine whether circumstances warrant a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth


in the SSU Student Handbook. A student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing

grade for the assignment and may face dismissal from the course.

Grading.

Pass/No-Credit Policy: English 0096 is a Pass/No-Credit class. You will not receive a

traditional letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) on your grade report or on your transcript. Instead,

those of you who successfully complete the course and who become eligible to enroll in

English 1101 will receive Ps (Pass); those who need more writing practice before

enrolling in English 1101 will receive NCs (No Credit). Neither a P nor an NC will have

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

In order to receive a P in English 0096, you must:

Earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on at least 3 of your required essays;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all out-of-class exercises;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all in-class exercises, AND

Pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.

Scoring of Essays: The following rubric indicates how your multiple-draft essays in

English 0096 will be scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

Lacks a thesis or

controlling idea.


idea. appropriate.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in


Contains flawed paragraph

construction.

Expresses developed

ideas. All or most of the

paragraphs are long

enough to indicate that the

writer has considered each

subtopic.

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may

be underdeveloped.

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons,

comma splices, non-

parallelism, mixed

constructions).

May have as many as 10


May have 11 or more


Demonstrates a sense of Demonstrates a sense of Demonstrates no sense of


audience awareness by

generally using

appropriate tone and

diction.

audience, but may

occasionally mix slang or

other inappropriate words

with academic tone and

diction.

audience awareness.

Frequently uses slang or

other inappropriate words.

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and

pronoun shifts, apostrophe

errors, misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional

uses of nonstandard

grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

Exit Exam: You will sign up to take the Exit Exam during one of several two-hour exam

blocks that will be scheduled for the last week of regular classes. The Exit Exam is given

during this week (rather than during final exam week) so that there will be time to have

each Exit Exam read by two or three members of the English faculty. Rather than

awarding traditional letter grades on the final exam, each reader will give the exam a 96

(indicating that the writing is still at the English 0096 level) or an 1101 (indicating that

the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 1101). Sometimes, a reader

may decide that a 96+ or 1101- is a more appropriate score than a simple 96 or 1101. A

96+ indicates that the writing would not be acceptable for an incoming English 1101

student, but it does show potential. An 1101- indicates that the writing is not entirely


acceptable for an incoming English 1101 student, but the reader felt that, with a great

deal of hard work, the student might be able to succeed in English 1101.

Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 (if needed) Final Score

1101 1101 NA 1101

1101 1101- NA 1101

1101- 1101- NA 1101

1101 1101- 96+ 1101

1101- 1101- 96+ 1101

1101 1101 96 1101

1101 1101- 96 1101

1101- 1101- 96 1101

1101 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96 96

1101 96 96 96

1101- 96 96 96

96+ 96+ NA 96

96+ 96 NA 96

96 96 NA 96

During final exam week, you will have an individual conference with your instructor. At

that conference, the instructor will give you the results of your Exit Exam. Most students

who are earning Ps at the time of the final exam are able to successfully complete the


Exit Exam. However, in rare instances, extenuating circumstances may cause a student

to fail. There is an appeal process for students who fail the Exit Exam:

The student must present his/her writing portfolio to the instructor.

The student must then discuss the issue with the instructor, explaining why s/he feels the

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

After hearing the student’s plea and examining the content of the portfolio, the instructor

will decide whether or not to pursue the appeal on behalf of the student.

If the instructor agrees that an appeal should be made, then the instructor will contact the

Director of Composition, who will make one of the following decisions:

To allow the student to take a retest.

To submit the original exam to members of the English department for re-evaluation.

To allow the student to pass the course based on the strength of the student’s portfolio.

To deny the student’s request. In this case, the student may follow standard university

procedure on grade appeals and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and

Humanities department.

If the instructor disagrees with the student and does not choose to appeal on the behalf of

the student, then the student may follow standard university procedure on grade appeals

and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department.

Students are NOT to appeal an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student

Success Center.


Appendix C

***Syllabus Template***

English 1101

Discourse and Composition

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A7-A10 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A7-A10.

Catalog Description:

An introduction to college composition. Students practice responding appropriately to

different types of rhetorical situations, writing in various genres, and critiquing discourse.

Students will learn to research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.:

Appropriate developmental class or placement.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall

often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide


alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Credit Hours: 5

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either

English 1101 or 1102, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Goals and Objectives:

Note: These goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on the Council of Writing

Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition and on The

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1101 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge

Students who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to


recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,

Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.

Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes



Recognize that writing is a flexible and not necessarily linear process, but rather a

recursive one.

Understand that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising, and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions


Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

They should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that develop a coherent thesis with

unity, structure, and sufficient detail.

Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their six

formal essays should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-

appropriate diction, but also demonstrate a competence in the conventions and grammar

of the English language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1101 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the


Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:

Students in English 1101 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1101 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success


Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A11-A14 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A11-A14.


Appendix D

***Syllabus Template***

English 1102

Discourse and Composition

Course Syllabus

Catalog Description: An accelerated introduction to college composition. Students

practice responding appropriately to different types of rhetorical situations, writing in

various genres, and critiquing discourse. Students will be required to conduct scholarly

research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.: Placement.

Credit Hours: 3

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either

English 1102 or 1101, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall


often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide

alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Goals and Objectives:

Note: These goals and objectives for English 1102 are based on the Council of Writing

Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition and on The

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1102 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge


Recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,


Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.

Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes

Students who enter English 1102 typically understand that writing is a flexible and not

necessarily linear process, but rather a recursive one. Furthermore, they typically

recognize that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

English 1102 will help these students better understand the various phases of the writing

process. Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to


Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions

Students who enter English 1102 should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that

develop a coherent thesis with clear structure and reasonable detail. They should also be

able to edit such essays, correcting flaws in syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

In English 1102, students will further develop these drafting and editing skills as they

practice writing more sophisticated essays. Students who successfully complete English

1102 should be able to

Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

Refine their use of syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their four formal essays

should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-appropriate

diction, but also demonstrate proficiency in the conventions and grammar of the English

language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1102 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the


Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:

Students in English 1102 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1102 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success


Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangnhu
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Abstract - PBworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · Web viewmarked...

Documents