Prerequisite: - PBworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · Web viewThe...

Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University:

A curriculum analysis

Deborah R. Davis

Shawnee State University

Department of Teacher Education

Advisor – Dr. Valerie Myers

March 17, 2011

Candidate for Masters of Education, Curriculum & Instruction

As of 5/5/2023 9:22:17 AM

Freshman Composition 2

Abstract

This paper explores the various Freshman Composition courses provided at Shawnee State

University and the extent to which they meet the requirements outlined in the guidelines of the

Ohio Board of Regents directives which flowed from the Ohio Board of Regents placement

summit of March, 2007. This analysis is conducted amidst the backdrop of concerns regarding

the extensive remedial and developmental English needs at this and other Universities

nationwide. An analysis of the varying methods of placement and curricula achievements at

comparative universities is provided for reference. The paper discusses the implications of

placement, describes various types of developmental/remedial/gatekeeping courses, and

examines the factors affected by placement/retention in these courses. Further, this paper

provides a comparative analysis of the standard Freshman Composition and Discourse program

in both parts (English 1101 and 1102), as well as the developmental writing courses and provides

review of the efforts to provide the best possible compositional foundation to students

matriculating at this University.

Keywords

Freshman Composition – Remedial English – Remedial Reading – Freshman Writing –

Placement Testing – Gatekeeper Courses – College Remediation – College Readiness –

Developmental Courses – Developmental Reading – Developmental Writing – Developmental

English – Postsecondary Remediation – College Preparedness – Curriculum Analysis

2

3 Davis, D.R.

Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Chapter 1 – Introduction 4

Chapter 1 – Overview 6

Chapter 1 – Research Question 8

Chapter 2 –Methodology/Research Design 9

Chapter 3 – Literature Review 14

Chapter 4 – Data Analysis and Interpretation 24

Chapter 5 – Summary/Discussion/Application 39

Bibliography 42

Appendices Index 45

Appendix A – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095 46

Appendix B – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096 53

Appendix C – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101 62

Appendix D – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102 68

3


Chapter 1

Introduction

The need to provide an equitable foundation in English Writing skills nearly equates to a

freshman “rite of passage,” if you will. Virtually all college students have composed the

foundational essays that form the basis of writing requirements that will be elaborated upon

within the varying disciplines. Shawnee State University is no different in that regard. In most

University programs, including Shawnee State, there are courses provided for those who do not

meet the requirements anticipated at the freshman writing level. At this University, the courses

are indicated in the course catalog as:

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1

ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2

For all these courses, there is a prerequisite of 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) (SSU, 2007).

Further information about placement, testing, and scores will be addressed in this document.

However, consequent to the placement policy, the courses indicated above are frequently

required. As such, the freshman student entering Shawnee State may have to take one of the

above “developmental” programs prior to entering the standard freshman writing class.

4

5 Davis, D.R.

The purpose of this curriculum analysis is to look at the curricula for the developmental

writing classes and the freshman English writing course – Discourse and Composition – to

determine if the curricula provided meet the implied requirement of preparing the student for

ENGL 1101 or 1102.

5


Chapter 1

Overview

Shawnee State appears to be on par with the national average of schools providing a

combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs. The

enrollment period for spring 2011 is considered at Shawnee State University. During this term,

table 1.1 outlines the available seating for both the developmental courses and the standard

introductory courses. Below it, table 1.2 outlines the available seating for both developmental

and standard composition coursework for fall 2010. That there are 380 seats for developmental

freshman composition class and 500 seats for standard freshman composition in spring 2011 is a

bit revealing. The fall class seats available for 2010 were 905 for developmental and 866 for

standard composition.

There are some students who may enroll in both a developmental reading and a

developmental writing course. Looking exclusively at writing courses, the Fall 2010 seat

allocation was 674 developmental and 866 standard. The Spring allocation is 300 for

developmental writing and 500 for standard. In any event, it would appear that about 40% of the

students enrolling in freshman English at Shawnee State are enrolling in a developmental writing

class of some kind. This appears to be on par with the national average.

Some states are addressing the issue of remedial coursework required prior to college

level coursework, and others are not. The analysis of national comparisons and methods from

elsewhere will be addressed later in this paper. However, it would seem that a pertinent question

remains. What can be done to have High School graduates ready for college?

6

7 Davis, D.R.

Tables 1.1 and 1.2

Spring 2011 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 20

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays 280

ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) 480

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) 20

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) 0

Table 1.1

Fall 2010 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 66

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays 608

ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) 706

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) 140

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) 20

Table 1.2

7


Chapter 1

Research Question

Does the curriculum provided to the freshman students at Shawnee State, who are

enrolled in developmental writing classes, meet the entry level curriculum needs of those

students?

8

9 Davis, D.R.

Chapter 2

Methodology and Design

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

Shawnee State University. The texts directed for use, the hierarchy which oversees the selection

of texts, and sample curriculum provided will all be analyzed.

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

questions and numeric answers. A “White Paper” by Vivayic 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” (Vivayic, 2008, p. 1).

Implementation of this research requires a rigorous review of the content and materials

provided to the faculty and the indicated or guided presentation of same to students. Further

evaluation of assessment methods should lead to suggestions for alternative options if

appropriate. Do the 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 are prepared to enter ENGL

1101 or 1102, fully prepared to be successful in one of these two courses? Further, is there

sufficient curricular overlap as to deem any of these courses redundant?

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. At least annually, the Division publishes a document that contains an overview of the

9


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.

Goals are noted within each of these syllabus templates. The goal of ENGL 0095 is to

prepare the student for ENGL 0096. The goal of ENGL 0096 is to prepare the student for ENGL

1101. The goals of ENGL 0097 and 0098 are to strengthen reading and comprehension. In that

they are not part of the writing curricula, they will be eliminated from this study. 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 subscore” (p. 20). 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). [[[[[ASK

MICHELLE ABOUT NUMBER OF RETEST REQUESTS PER YEAR]]]]

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

10

11 Davis, D.R.

Education Curriculum Analysis Report (CAR) Reviewer’s Guide (WVDE, 2010). Among the

many details in the Reviewer’s Guide, is a specific format for the CAR. That format is a

guideline and will be adapted to provide this analysis. This 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 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 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 period of comparison to determine

overlap, appropriateness, review, and/or redundancy.

Within the section on Contextual Information and Framework will be 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.

In the review and analysis portion, these elements will be compared to those of other Universities

who have similar requirements or structure.

Within the section on Textbooks and specific assignments will be the detailed citation

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

11


indicated to be of value. Further, 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. Alternative texts from recent years may be included in this section if pertinent to the

analysis.

Guidelines from the institution would include any state or national indicators. Further,

anything this particular University has established would be included here along with the

rationale. The functions of Faculty leeway and Assessment methods will be brief and likely

combined in that they are likely to be specifically stated if required or allowed.

A concluding section for each course, providing other program-related information, will

allow for anything that does not fit neatly into the other categories yet merits attention. The

Vivayic Whitepaper on Curriculum Analysis will be addressed in Chapter 5—Summary,

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

is important to note that the Vivayic elements are geared toward both rigor and relevance while

the WVDE CAR is focused more strictly on relevance. [[[[[Vivayic theses should be included,

either at the beginning (where first introduce Vivayic) or here.]]]

12

13 Davis, D.R.

Chapter 3

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 is well documented nationwide. A trend toward a lack of college

readiness has predicated the need for developmental or gatekeeping courses. If students were

better prepared upon arrival at institutions of higher learning, the entire developmental program

would be rendered moot. Therefore, in order to understand the curricula that have been brought

into play here, it is important to gain a framework of the entire question of remediation.

Jenkins, Jaggars and Roksa (2009), note that the successful completion of college-level

English and math are “important both because they are generally required for degree programs

and because their attainment is associated with increased chances of earning a credential” (p. 12).

This leads them to an exploration of “why some students take and pass gatekeeper courses while

others do not, and to identify strategies colleges can use to increase students’ success in these

gatekeepers and beyond.” One explanation is offered by Chen (2010), who elaborates on

learning strategies as they apply to knowledge levels. Chen’s study provides data regarding

cognitive style and student conceptions and misconceptions regarding the gatekeeping

coursework (p. 297). As stated within that body of work, “to learn effectively, students must

organize and link their prior knowledge with new knowledge. Students who are unable to link

new knowledge with prior knowledge have problems understanding, recalling, and accessing the

new knowledge later” (p. 289).

Much literature has been written about whether or not high school graduates are ready for

college. Katsinas & Bush (2006) wrote a detailed article “Assessing What Matters: Improving

13


College Readiness 50 Years Beyond Brown” in which arguments about the [then] new No Child

Left Behind Act were addressed [[[[[expand issues addressed]]]]]. Cline, Bissell, Hafner, and

Katz (2007) questioned whether there was more than fulfilling eligibility requirements in

“Closing the College Readiness Gap[[[[[expand this thought]]]]].” Conley presented an article

“Rethinking College Readiness” where he addresses variance in high school preparedness and

the consequences. Here he explains that “A key problem is that the current measures of college

preparation are limited in their ability to communicate to students and educators the true range of

what students must do to be fully ready to succeed in college” (Conley, 2008).

Brock (2010) specifically addressed issues of remedial education, explaining 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) presents his issues under the venue of remedial mathematics,

but the motivations apply equally to remedial English. [[[[[transition between Brock’s concern

about students dropping out and George’s point about the role of the instructor to motivate

students]]]]]As he states:

Clearly, 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).

Gewertz (2010) presents the construct of 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). It is Carey (2010) who gives the specifics

on how many are assigned to remedial coursework upon college entry. Olson (2006) gives ideas

14

15 Davis, D.R.

on how to preclude remediation by better preparation. [[[[[ EXPAND THESE

THOUGHTS/IDEAS]]]]]

Reviewing from the early years of remedial assignments, McGann (1947) [[[[[WHY

HER?????]]]]] gives some solid foundational expertise in the matter. Her work suggested that

students unready for a collegiate experience need further tutelage and perhaps maturity to be

successful. Suddick (1982) found value in the use of tests for upper division students where

they had previously been used only for freshman entrance evaluations. More importantly, he

addresses that “students identified as deficient in their entry-level English usage can be provided

instruction to enhance their skills and thus to elevate their academic performance” (p. 369). It

must also be considered, as presented by Wilson (n.d.), that “Writing, whose process and product

are organic, does not lend itself to quantifiable measurement.”

While learning disabilities do not always apply to remediation, Cowden (2010) gives an

excellent analysis that does apply. He presents that students learn in differing methods, manners,

and patterns, and that those with learning disabilities need particular instruction in overcoming

those disabilities. This is particularly valuable in that some schools (NHSE) are applying the

same analysis to all incoming students, and thereby enhancing all students’ education.

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)

expresses concerns about students who are not prepared, presenting the same situation as

Jacobsen, a loss of the unprepared. Callahan & Chumney (2009) discuss positioning remedial

students for success, and suggest that a more stringent method of preparation will set them in a

better position for achievement. After all, as Burlison, et al (2009) present, “valid measures of

15


academic aptitude [SAT/ACT] are among out most fruitful predictors” of academic performance

( p. 1313).

Toward an understanding of the literature reviewed, and the comparison between those

and other pieces, there are a few striking questions.

1. What is readiness?

2. Why is there a gap?

3. What can be done?

All articles address some questions; some articles address all, from varying perspectives

and to varying degrees.

What is Readiness?

“Exactly what constitutes ‘college-level work’ is by no means clear” (Attewel et al 2006,

p. 887). Still, best defined by Conley, readiness is “the degree to which previous educational and

personal experiences have equipped them for the expectations and demands they will encounter

in college (p. 7). Conley further presented a concept based on “four facets: key cognitive

strategies, key content knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and knowledge” (p.

3).

Conley’s work provides sound definitions, but presents a slightly more convoluted

perspective. However, Cline and others 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.” Cline construes the problem in terms of the “50 percent of

entering freshmen system wide [who] need remediation in English or mathematics.” That 50

percent is out of the 33 percent of high school seniors “should be eligible to enter the California

State University system” (p. 30). Yang (2010) concurs strongly that “Many students who

16

17 Davis, D.R.

register for undergraduate study are under-prepared for university education.” The focus of

effort in that study is on reading, and the lack of strategies or strategic intent. However, the same

can be easily said of college writing.

Cline’s desire to close the gap is echoed extensively by Katsinas and Bush. 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). They further present their objectives in terms of three positive and two negative outcomes

from high school.

Carey (2010) indicates, “30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those who

attend Community College” (p. A30) are placed in remedial coursework because of a lack of

basic English and math skills. Brock (2010) explains that the open admissions policy of the

1960s and 1970s led to “allow all high school graduates to pursue college degrees regardless of

academic preparation” (p. 112). He continues, explaining that assigning students to remedial

coursework “clearly divides them from students considered to be ‘college ready’” (p. 116).

Even back before the open enrollment boom of the 1960s, there were students in need of

remedial teaching as presented by McGann (1947). Her study showed marked improvement

upon remedial instruction, particularly among boys (p. 502). George (2010) 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).

Perhaps among the most surprising reports were detailed by Perkins-Gough (2008) where

over 80 percent of students presented they had done most all high school worked, taken 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).

17


Why is there a gap?

College instructors expect more from students. To make inferences and interpretations,

to analyze and argue, to research and relate conclusions are all part and parcel of the expectations

of college students. High school teachers are more likely to present the material slower, allow

more time for responses, and generally expect less of the students. Pace is dramatically hastened

as a student who may have been expected to lightly review two texts is required to consume and

interpret several (Conley, 2008, p. 5). As Conley states, “In short, the differences in expectations

between high school and college are manifold and significant” (p. 6).

Cline explains that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at the university level is

significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically under prepared” (p. 30).

Such an ideal 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 refers to “habits of mind,” helping students succeed (p. 31). One of

the interesting points is that in this area, Cline is actually quoting Conley’s article.

Katsinas and Bush present their issues of concern focused around the placement exams

and the “quality of the test-takers’ college preparation” (p. 777). Their article further presents

that a lack of college level course work leads to the natural consequence of an unprepared

graduate (p. 777). While the Katsinas and Bush article presents a focus on under-privileged and

minority students, there is a broad perspective application to those in the rural areas as well.

George (2010) focuses his efforts on remedial mathematics education, but his points are

well made with respect to remedial English education as well. His focus is largely on

motivation, ethics, social context, and “choices that extend beyond the domain” (p. 82). He

references the position of remedial professor as a “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose

18

19 Davis, D.R.

academic and social advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a [mathematics]

placement examination” (p. 83). Further, George (2010), goes on to address the concerns of

“exit criteria,” a point that is shown to apply fervently to the work in the SSU CDE program.

Another pertinent point from George is that “many students’ experiences in public schools

involved being “passed along” despite expending very little effort” (p. 85.) The true pity in this

issue is that it is true for many students of widely varying capabilities and scores.

Olson (2006) tells about students drawn from the top third of high school graduates,

among whom “47 percent” were identified as needing remedial English instruction (p. 27). As

Carey (2010) explains, “despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic skills in reading and

math” (p. A30). Successful work in college level courses depends on good high school

preparation, according to Jacobson (2006, p. 138).

Zajacova et al (2005) place the burden on capability squarely within the realm of self-

efficacy. This refreshing view truly 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” (Zajacova, et al. 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 can be done?

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

without remediation is a harbinger for success through commencement. Beyond that, it is found

that students who are challenged through high school will have greater success, not only in

college, but in life. However, “supporters of developmental education therefore construe the

19


controversy over remediation as an attack on access to college” (Attewell, 2006, p. 887). The

concern then arises 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” (ibid).

To that end, Conley advises that students be challenged throughout their academic

careers. Further, 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 is that students who want to

be college ready need to be set a standard of readiness, not just eligibility. Many who are

eligible are unready.

George (2010) presents 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 addresses “motivation by policy” where the institution has some governing

directive involving course grading, credit, or exit policies. Both these issues will be covered

more thoroughly in the analysis of the curriculum itself. Beyond these issues, is his focus on

student autonomy, another point which will be addressed in concert with local curricula.

Cline, et al, lays out the program incorporated in California. This broad program

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).

20

21 Davis, D.R.

According to Katsinas and Bush, “about 2/3 of high school graduates go on to college”

(p. 780). The article addresses the matter that “the assessment mechanism drives system

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

on “micro-outcomes such as standardized, in-classroom test scores” (p. 781). Further, this article

recommends and emphasis on “larger macro level indicators associated with . . . Positive

outcomes of high school” (p. 781).

Carey (2010) presents 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

in well with Gewertz (2010) presentation of standards so that completing high school English

programs will prepare students to move forward into college English (p. 14). In California,

Olson (2010) tells us that 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 CSU faculty

members” (p. 27).

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). Jacobson’s analysis (2006) presents to us that while an

enhanced developmental program may provide for more successful students among those who

complete it; the motivational factors that are impeded by placement into developmental programs

may ultimately obstruct degree completion for those students (p. 158). Attewell, et al (2006)

does point out that there is a positive influence of remedial courses, for those students who

successfully complete them. Callahan & Chumney (2009) provide insights into the mindset of

students in both two and four-year college remediation programs, and learned that the program at

21


the four-year institution encouraged students to “acquire a habitus of what is required to be

successful” at college.

This construct, what Dr. David Swinton terms a “culture of effort” is captured in his

program of “Success Equals Effort (SEE)” where 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 (Holsendolph, 2005, p. 30-33).

He also allows that “adult remediation programs have a poor track record” (p. 33).

Perkins-Gough (2008) presents 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 a need for K-16 performance, and subsequent work with the Ohio Department of

Education (ODE) on such a program.

Literature Review Conclusion

These articles may have different foci, but the emphasis is the same. There is a difference

between “eligible” for college and “ready” for college. When President George W. Bush said

“We expect every child to learn” (Katsinas and Bush, 2006, p. 784), no one could disagree with

that statement, but no one wanted classrooms mired in testing requirements and paperwork.

While Katsinas and Bush were directing their work to the advances made and not made in the

minority education community, their points stand equally valid among all students. Conley’s

recommendation that “high schools and colleges can use the same language to communicate

what it takes” (p. 12) is well taken. As Conley states, “Making certain that they are not just

eligible but prepared will help students achieve their goals and help colleges function more

effectively” (p. 12). Cline’s presentation, that schools should “work together to ensure

equitable opportunities for all students,” would allow for students to be well prepared. Cowden

22

23 Davis, D.R.

(2010) points out that “the ability to learn is an important life skill” (p. 230). This is the same

foundation echoed by the Ohio Board of Regents when they designate that high school credit and

graduation should be administered based on “A means of assessing high school students’ college

and work readiness, especially in English and mathematics” (OBR, 2007. p. 9).

As George (2010) reminds us, “It is one thing to help clarify the process through which

the material in the course is mastered, and it is another to personally compel the student to

comply with that process” (p. 85). Brock points out a flaw in the image of the educational

pipeline, detailing the myriad of twists, turns, and obstructions which can detour a swiftly

flowing river. Olson (2010) quotes Keith O. Boyum, CSU’s associate vice chancellor for

academic affairs saying, “students who arrive prepared and experience early success are more

likely to follow through to graduation, to succeed, and all that good stuff” (p. 27).

Still, concerns exist due to the convolutions of individuality. As presented by Horn, et al.

(2009), “Some research suggests the number of developmental classes a student is required to

take negatively relates with the likelihood of completion” (p. 514). Bahr (2010) tells us,

however, that “Remedial English students who attain college-level English competency . . . are

comparable to students who achieve college-level English skill without remediation” (p. 190).

Still, Attewell reminds us that “there is no objective or generally agreed upon cut-off below

which college students require remediation. Each college follows its own set of practices, and

this leads to considerable variability” (p. 887).

All of these issues coalesce to provide background to the questions presented herein

regarding our curricula at Shawnee State. What are we doing for our freshman writers?

23


Chapter 4

Data Analysis & Interpretation

Contextual Information and Framework

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.

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 (ORB, p. 2).

This general guideline is followed by a detailed list of twelve bullet points detailing specifics

which employ the above. Shawnee State University has a tiered structure of English writing

courses, as indicated previously. Placement, according to the Catalog, is based upon test scores:

If you enter with an ACT English subscore of 19 or higher (SAT 460) and a reading

subscore of 16 or higher, you will be permitted to register for ENGL 1101. If you enter

with an ACT English subscore of 24 or higher (SAT 550) and a reading subscore of 16 or

higher, you will be permitted to register for ENGL 1102. (SSU, 2007, p. 25).

24

25 Davis, D.R.

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, p. 25).

Within the structure of Shawnee State University:

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 which

are advised, and those which 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, p. 26).

Within the Office of Admissions Placement directive is this chart regarding placement.

English ACT sub

scoreEnglish Placement

Reading ACT sub

scoreEnglish Placement

24 or higher ENGL 1102

19-23 ENGL 1101

11-18 ENGL 0096 11-15 ENGL 0098 & ENGL 0096

10 or lower ENGL 0095 10 or lower ENGL 0097 & ENGL 0095

25


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

sub score 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.edu, 2010).

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.

26

27 Davis, D.R.

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

syllabus. Student exit exams are graded by acknowledgement of the students achievement level,

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 a “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.

At Shawnee State, as at most University systems, there is a foundation element of

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

acquire the characteristics of an educated person” (SSU, 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).

27


28

29 Davis, D.R.

Table 4.1 indicates the requirements at a spectrum of Universities throughout Ohio.

These University course requirements were pulled to evaluate the comparative nature of the

placement into a Freshman English Composition program as indicated by each University to be

part of that schools 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 for these courses was some form of testing, and the score requirements were highly

comparable. All were between 17 and 20 ACT English subscore levels. 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

program below the freshman level, while meeting credit hours for determination of full-time

students, did not fulfill graduation requirements.

29


Textbooks

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

textbooks” (CDE, p. 6). This document briefly addresses the search process for textbooks, and

goes in length to ensure understanding of the necessity for the prescribed text. Students are to be

cautioned regarding the purchase of prior editions. All textbooks for the composition program

are, however, on reserve at the library on campus and may be accessed there during open library

hours. Each syllabus details any textbooks required to include the ISBN for those textbooks.

The textbook required for ENGL 0095 is The Writer’s World: Paragraphs & Essays

(Gaetz & Phadke, 2008). This text is also available with access to www.mywritinglab.com, an

online support service with additional exercises.

[[[[[ this text has been ordered and I am awaiting its receipt to complete this section ]]]]]

The textbook required for ENGL 0096 is The Writer’s World: Essays (Gaetz & Phadke,

2009). An Instructor’s Resource Manual (Nichols & McCartney-Christensen, 2009) is also

provided to the faculty. This text is also available with access to www.mywritinglab.com, an

online support service with additional exercises.

Per the guidelines for this course, students’ primary task is to practice composing

paragraphs, and 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, p. 21).

The Instructor’s Resource Manual provides suggested syllabi for varying lengths of

terms. At SSU, the semester is a sixteen week term, and there is a syllabus for sixteen weeks (p.

7). The Resource Manual also provides a summary and a multiple choice quiz for each chapter.

30

31 Davis, D.R.

The textbook itself is composed in 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, 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 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 of subject-verb agreement, tenses, and problem verbs.

Within the elements addressed are a series of practice exercises of the “fill-in-the-blank”

variety. 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 format is straightforward and direct, perhaps even pedantic. It would appear to be

tedious to spend three hours a week pursuing this knowledge at this pace for sixteen weeks.

Perhaps more importantly, the structure does not truly lend itself to specifically preparing the

students for the exit exam or ENGL 1101.

Throughout the writing assignments given, students are strongly encouraged to

remember that writing is a circular process, and they are to review and edit their work for

rewriting repeatedly. 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. Nowhere in the syllabus are

the students challenged to meet this requirement before the exit exam. The five essays to be

31


completed during the class are only 350 words long. Instead, the focus is on the composition of

paragraphs.

The textbooks required for ENGL 1101 or 1102 are identical. The Longman Concise

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

required for either of these courses and also the follow-on course, ENGL 1105. Both these

courses also use Reid (2011), The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. The

ValPack contains both The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers, and Purposes: A Prentice

Hall Pocket Reader (CDE, pp. 22 &33). With these texts can be purchased 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.

As noted in above, ENGL 1101 and 1102 are both programmed to provide a necessary

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

ENGL 1101 course is a five unit course, whereas the ENGL 1102 course is a three unit course

which requires ACT subscore of 24 to enter. To enter ENGL 1101, the student must have

successfully passed ENGL 0096 or have an ACT subscore of at least 11.

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

example, the library tutorial program is not required of students in ENGL 1102, but an online

tutorial may be assigned. While both will use the rubric for grading standards (pages A21-A28

of The Longman Concise Companion), students in ENGL 1101 will provide at least six formal

papers of at least 750 words. Students in ENGL 1102 will provide at least four formal papers of

approximately 1250 words. However, two of the formal papers provided by students in both

classes will be composed using academic research and citation methods. Also, students in both

classes must provide a minimum of 6000 words of information responses, journals, etc.

32

33 Davis, D.R.

The professor in ENGL 1101/1102 has the discretion to 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 this method that

will be analyzed here.

The Longman Concise Companion (LCC) (2010) is a standard rhetoric and handbook for

collegiate level composition issues. The first four parts are general writing guidelines. 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. The other

four chapters specifically indicate guidelines for varying documentation styles, and include and

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 colorful to provide ready access

and reference to them.

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. This book provides

detailed reference 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

33


become very familiar with it. This provides an advantage to the students who do these

homework assignments as this resource is a benefit in this class as well as future writing courses.

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

provided for the course, and is accompanied by a Pocket Reader entitled Purposes (2007). The

text, PHG, proceed 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 essays are provided using the techniques represented. Additionally, the

chapters frequently model the drafting and revision process 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 on

“Writing Under Pressure.” This document is exceedingly valuable to students and could well be

presented in the SSU ENGL 0095 and 0096 courses.

The Purposes text gives a variety of essays which 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 to work together. The essays selected

for Purposes are eclectic and dynamic. Students find them to be opinionated, making them good

34

35 Davis, D.R.

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 provide 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 incorporate the method of writing as a circular process, reviewing their own work

and each 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 would 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 consistently challenged to meet the requirements.

However, the structure of the courses – with ENGL 1101 providing five hours of class

time per week gives the students plenty of guidance. One weak spot is noted. While effort is

made to place composition courses into computer enabled classrooms, SSU currently has too few

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

for which they were placed into ENGL 1101. Students placed into ENGL 1101 are those who

achieved a 19-23 on the ACT or equivalent percentile on the SAT or COMPASS test.

Alternatively, they are those who successfully completed ENGL 0096 with an exit exam score of

35


1101. These students have good basic skills, but still need consistent structure and feedback

which they can only receive properly 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, p. 7). As a part of the mission statement of this University, this

dedication is reflected throughout the documents provided or available to all students. Faculty is

encouraged to pursue individual advancement in education to strengthen the program

collectively. “Faculty are evaluated first and foremost on excellence in teaching and second on

scholarship and/or service to the University and the community” (ibid). The English

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

levels in basic knowledge and skills” (ibid).

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, p. 16). The English

Composition program has been designed to meet or exceed the standards of any Ohio public

college or university to facilitate this transfer module. 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,

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

36

37 Davis, D.R.

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, 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 our library staff to enhance research

functionality. Some faculty find it valuable to use class periods to schedule specific conference

time 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 decision of the

degree of penalty (a grade of “F” on the paper, “F” in the course, or a “formal charged of

academic misconduct”) is the decision of the Chair of the Department of English and Humanities

(CDE, p. 32).

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

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the method for handing 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 is a student responsibility.

Other program-related information

37


Shawnee State University provides an excellent and extensive set of tutoring options for

students. Three specific facilities provide and computer resources to 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, p. 14). These resources allow for Shawnee

students to have every opportunity to grow, learn, and perform within their English classes.

38

39 Davis, D.R.

Chapter 5

Summary, Discussion, and Application

The Vivayic Whitepaper on Curricula Analysis specifically leans toward “learned

curriculum.” That team broke the process into steps, and determined that in following these

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

Step one was to define a framework for measuring performance expectations (Vivayic, p.

9). The general presentiment is such that each curriculum should define its own framework for

measuring performance. The composition curricula excel in this area overall. In ENGL 0095

and 0096, students are guided directly and grading rubrics are provided. Reviewing, editing, and

rewriting are encouraged until the final assessment. For ENGL 1101 and 1102, the grading

rubrics for writing assignments are published in the textbook for the course. Each faculty

member is directed to include specific references to them 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.

Step two was to apply the framework 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” (Vivayic, p. 10). It is in this area that the elements

supported from within the SSU system are more fragile. That, however, is not necessarily a bad

thing. Writing is not an exact science, nor is teaching. The wide variety of skill sets,

background insights, and personalities involved in the faculty of the first-year composition

program allows for a match-up with student learning styles, needs, and guidance. Students, with

careful advising, can benefit extensively from the flexibility granted these teachers. The

39


objectives are clearly stated and direct, the assessments are also lucid. It is only the methods of

implementation which are granted faculty independence.

Step three is identifying content for further analysis (Vivayic, p. 14). This point, again,

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,

p. 7). Presumably, by competence, the meaning of “Sufficiency of qualification; capacity to deal

adequately with a subject” should apply (OED). 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. Perhaps this is because the programs are too detailed for the material indicated. This is

a weakness in this program. The ENGL 1101 and 1102 programs, while perhaps lesser suited for

such identification of content, seem to outline the requirements more thoroughly. The grading

rubric provided in the syllabi and the text is properly detailed and makes and excellent teaching

tool.

Step four is analyzing the relative level of rigor and relevance (Vivayic, p. 16). The only

way to learn to write is to write. The extensive writing requirements of all courses presented to

freshman at SSU provide ample opportunity for students to write, to learn, to review, to edit, and

to write again. Students who participate fully in each level of the program would be hard-

pressed not to grow in writing ability through the process.

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

40

41 Davis, D.R.

each, an eight-week term may be adequate and could enhance student awareness of the program

be moving them through it with less tedium. During the last few weeks before the exit exam, the

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

format currently encouraged. The essay presented 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 may be a textbook well suited for those students as well.

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.

The existing curriculum for ENGL 0095/0096 is tedious and labored. Further, 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 would be more

efficacious. 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 SECTION STILL TO BE EXPANDED ]]]]]]

41


References

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, Thomas. (2010). Young adults and higher education: barriers and breakthroughs to

success. Future of Children, 20(1), 109-133.

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, Kevin. (2010). Why we need a 'race to the top' for higher education. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 56(26), A30-A30.

CDE. Composition and Developmental English. (2010). Handbook of composition and

developmental english. Informally published manuscript, Department of English and the

Humanities, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

Cline, Z, Bissell, J, Hafner, A, & Katz, M. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap. Leadership,

37(2), 30-33.

Conley, DT. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education,

144(WI), 3-13.

Cowden, Peter. (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.

42

43 Davis, D.R.

George, Michael. (2010). Ethics and motivation in remedial mathematics education. Community

College Review, 31(1), 82-92.

Gewertz, Catherine. (2010). Proposed standards go public. Education Week, 29(25), 1-15.

Holsendolph, Ernest. (2005). Building a’culture of effort.’ Black Issues in Higher Education.

April, 2005, 30-33.

Jacobsen, Eric. (2006). Higher placement standards increase course success but reduce program

completions. Journal of General Education, 55(2), 138-159.

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, Mary. (1947). Diagnostic testing and remedial teaching for common errors in

mechanics of english made by college freshman. Journal of Educational Psychology,

38(8), 499-503.

Nichols, J. & H. McCartney-Christensen. (2009). Instructor’s resource manual: the writer’s

world: essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

OBR. Ohio Board of Regents. (2007). English expectations for college readiness. Proceedings of

the K-16 seamless transition.

OED, . (2010). "competence". Oxford english dictionary. Retrieved December 16, 2010, from

http://www.oed.com.proxy01.shawnee.edu/view/Entry/37567?

redirectedFrom=competence.

Olson, Lynn. (2006). Calif. high schoolers get preview of college-placement test. Education

Week, 25(33), 27-27.

Perkins-Gough, Deborah. (2008). Unprepared for college. Educational Leadership, NOV, 88-90.

43


Reid, Stephen. (2011). The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers. Boston: Prentice.

Reid, Stephen (Ed.). (2007). Purposes: a prentice hall pocket reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Suddick, David. (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.

Shawnee.edu (2010). The Placement Program: English Placement. Online University

Publication, Office of Admissions. Shawnee State University. Portsmout, OH. Retrieved

from http://www.shawnee.edu/off/adms/placement.html.

SSU. Shawnee State University (SSU). (2007). University college: placement testing. Informally

published manuscript, Office of Adminissions, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth,

Ohio. Retrieved from http://catalog.shawnee.edu/.

Wilson, Robert L. (n.d.). Comment: accountability and english. Unpublished manuscript,

English, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, OH.

WVDE. 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, Yu-Fen. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial

reading instruction. Computers & Education, 05(16). 1193-1201.

Zajacova, A. & S.M. Lynch, & T.J. Espenshade. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic

success in college. Research in Higher Education. 46(6). Sept 2005. 677-706.

44

45 Davis, D.R.

Index to Appendices

Title Page

Appendix A – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095 46

Appendix B – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096 53

Appendix C – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101 62

Appendix D – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102 68

45


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

46

47 Davis, D.R.

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:

1. Gain understanding that writing involves a process of pre-writing, writing, and rewriting

2. 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.

3. 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;

47


reflect a basic understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation,

spelling, and mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.

4. Review the fundamentals of Standard American English. This review may involve

lecture, discussion, in-class activities, and out-of-class exercises.

5. Improve their ability to edit their own work and correct punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

6. Take the English 0095 Exit Exam.

7. 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.

48

49 Davis, D.R.

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:

49


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 paragraph

construction.

Expresses developed ideas.

All or most of the paragraphs

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may be

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

50

51 Davis, D.R.

are long enough to indicate

that the writer has considered

each subtopic.

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 major

sentence errors.

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,

51


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:

o To allow the student to take a retest.

o To submit the original exam to members of the English department for re-

evaluation.

o To allow the student to pass the course based on the strength of the student’s

portfolio.

o 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.

52

53 Davis, D.R.

53


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.

54

55 Davis, D.R.

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

55


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:

1. Practice composing paragraphs.

2. 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.

3. Review the fundamentals of Standard American English. This review may involve

lecture, discussion, in-class activities, and out-of-class exercises.

4. Improve their ability to edit their own work and correct punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

5. Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.

6. Keep a writing portfolio. This portfolio must include all of the work completed in

English 0096 this semester.

56

57 Davis, D.R.

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.

57


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.

58

59 Davis, D.R.

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 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

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more major

sentence errors.

59


Demonstrates a sense of

audience awareness by

generally using appropriate

tone and diction.

Demonstrates a sense of

audience, but may

occasionally mix slang or

other inappropriate words

with academic tone and

diction.

Demonstrates no sense of

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

60

61 Davis, D.R.

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.

61


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:

o To allow the student to take a retest.

o To submit the original exam to members of the English department for re-

evaluation.

o To allow the student to pass the course based on the strength of the student’s

portfolio.

o 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.

62

63 Davis, D.R.

63


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,

64

65 Davis, D.R.

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

65


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

o Have a clear purpose,

o Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

o Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

o 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


66

67 Davis, D.R.

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.

67


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

68

69 Davis, D.R.

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

69


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

70

71 Davis, D.R.

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


71


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

o Have a clear purpose,

o Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

o Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

o 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


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

72

73 Davis, D.R.

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


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.

73


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

74

75 Davis, D.R.

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

75


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.

76

Date post:	06-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	truongngoc
View:	221 times
Download:	3 times

Prerequisite: - PBworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · Web viewThe...

Documents