abstract - pbworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · web viewdo described...

Running Head: FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 1

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 3:30:11 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


Table of ContentsAbstract................................................................................................................................2

Chapter One - Introduction..................................................................................................5

Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University............................................5

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

Table 1.1...........................................................................................................................8

Fall 2010 available course seats.......................................................................................8

Table 1.2...........................................................................................................................8

Spring 2011 available course seats..................................................................................8

Research Question............................................................................................................9

Chapter Two - Literature Review........................................................................................9

1. Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in college?........9

2. What seems to be the cause(s) of the gap between high school achievement and college readiness?..........................................................................................................10

4. What is being done to resolve these concerns?.........................................................15

5. How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to alleviating these concerns?..............................................................................................................21

Chapter Three - Methodology and Design........................................................................24

Chapter Four - Data Analysis & Interpretation.................................................................29

Contextual Information and Framework........................................................................29

Table 4.1.........................................................................................................................31

English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University....................................31

Goals, grading and exit requirements............................................................................32

Table 4.2.........................................................................................................................35

Table 4.3.........................................................................................................................36

Textbooks and any Specific Assignments.....................................................................37

Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy............................................................45

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods....................................................................46

Other Program-Related Information..............................................................................47

Chapter Five - Summary, Discussion, and Application...................................................47


References..........................................................................................................................52

Index to Tables..................................................................................................................56

Index to Appendices..........................................................................................................57


Chapter One - Introduction

Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University

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

equates to a freshman “rite of passage.” Virtually all college students have composed the

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

upon within the varying disciplines. Shawnee State University is no different in that

regard. In most University programs, including Shawnee State, there are courses

provided for those who do not meet the requirements anticipated at the freshman writing

level. At this University, the courses are indicated in the course catalog as:

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

o A student who earns an English subscore of 10 or lower is placed in

English 0095 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards

graduation).

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

o A student who earns an English subscore of 11-18 is placed in English

0096 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards

graduation requirements).

ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1

ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2

While the Reading Development courses are important and pertinent to many

issues, they are not directly related to the writing requirements and will not be

addressed within this project.

Regarding placement, the university catalog states:


The university placement policy is prerequisite to enrolling in ENGL 1101 or

ENGL 1102. Students completing developmental courses are required to pass not

only the course itself but also the course exit exam before enrolling in

ENGL1101. The composition sequence (ENGL 1101 or 1102, and 1105) is a

prerequisite for advanced coursework in English (including the civilization and

literature series) (Shawnee State University [SSU], 2007, p. 219).

However, consequent to the placement policy, the courses indicated above as the

composition sequence are frequently required for completion of University General

Education Program (GEP), Transfer Module, and advanced coursework in many majors.

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

“developmental” programs prior to beginning the composition sequence.

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

developmental writing classes to determine if the curricula provided meet the implied

requirement of preparing the student for ENGL 1101 or 1102 -- the freshman English

writing course – Discourse and Composition. Through this analysis, it is hoped that there

will be clarification of the sequence of writing coursework objectives from

developmental through the composition sequence. Beyond that, this analysis will provide

a rationale for the necessity of the currently tiered program or identify alternatives as may

be suggested by other state and university systems.

Overview

Shawnee State appears to be on par with many American universities in providing

a combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs.

A recent study shows “nearly 30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those


who attend community college are forced to take noncredit remedial courses because,

despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic skills in reading and math” ,Carey,

2010, p. 2).

An analysis of English composition seats at Shawnee State University indicates a

similar pattern. For this analysis, the enrollment period for the 2010-2011academic year

is considered. Table 1.1 outlines the available seating for developmental courses and the

beginning of the composition sequence for the Fall, 2010 semester. Below it, table 1.2

outlines the available seating for both developmental and standard composition

coursework for the Spring, 2011 term. That there are 342 seats for developmental

freshman composition class and 500 seats for standard freshman composition in Spring

2011 indicates the percentage (40%) of students enrolled in composition for whom seats

are made available in developmental classes. The fact that 334 of those available seats

were, in fact, occupied shows the need for those courses. In the Fall, of the nearly 900

seats available for regular composition seats, 88% were filled. The spring class seats

available for 2011 were 905 for developmental and 888 for standard composition, with

95% of the regular composition seats filled. The percentage of 43% indicates similar

ratios for fall as for spring.

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

college level coursework, and others address the issue at the college level. In Ohio, and

more specifically at Shawnee State University, the issue is addressed through remedial

coursework such as the developmental sequence of courses described above. The

question then arises, are the remedial courses preparing students to move forward through


the composition sequence so as to be prepared for required Freshman-level compositions

sequence? This is, then, the central question of this curriculum analysis.

Table 1.1

Fall 2010 available course seatsCourse Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 66 54 12

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:

Paragraphs and Essays

608 518 90

ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) 738 654 84

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) 140 128 12

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) 20 14 6

0.1.1

Table 1.2

Spring 2011 available course seatsCourse Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 26 25 1

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:

Paragraphs and Essays

316 309 7

ENGL 1101 – Discourse and Composition (A) 480 455 25

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (B) 20 20 0

ENGL 1102 – Discourse and Composition (Honors) 0 0 0

Table 1.0.2


Research Question

Does the curriculum provided to the Shawnee State University freshman-level

students enrolled in developmental writing classes meet the entry level curriculum needs

for the required composition sequence, and more directly, English 1101 – Discourse and

Composition?

Chapter Two - Literature Review

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

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

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

degree programs and because their attainment is associated with increased chances of

earning a credential” (p. 12). This leads them to an exploration of “why some students

take and pass gatekeeper courses while others do not, and to identify strategies colleges

can use to increase students’ success in these gatekeepers and beyond (p. 12).” Cline,

Bissell, Hafner & Katz (2007) suggest the need to develop “habits of mind”—engaging

the students in problem-solving, analytical research, and supported interpretations and

critical reasoning—thus helping students succeed in advanced level work (p. 31).

College instructors expect more from students. To make inferences and

interpretations, to analyze and argue, to research and relate conclusions are all part and

parcel of the expectations of college students. High school teachers are more likely to

present the material more slowly, allow more time for responses, and generally expect

less of the students. Pace is dramatically hastened as a student who may have been

expected to lightly review two texts is required to consume and interpret several (Conley,


2008, p. 5). As Conley states, “In short, the differences in expectations between high

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

Chen (2010), elaborates on the importance of learning strategies as they apply to

knowledge levels. Chen’s study provides data regarding cognitive style and student

conceptions and misconceptions regarding the gatekeeping coursework (p. 297). As

stated within that body of work, “to learn effectively, students must organize and link

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

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

the new knowledge later” (p. 289). Without this linkage, students will face greater

challenges in future educational endeavors. Students may have learned knowledge, facts,

and issues in high school, but the ability to link them with future knowledge seems to be

lacking. These links are established fully through the freshman foundation coursework at

the college level in English and math, where prior teachings are reviewed lightly, and

new methods and applications are presented.

2. What seems to be the cause(s) of the gap between high school achievement and

college readiness?

Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz explain that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at

the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college

academically under prepared” (p. 30). Such an observation may seem patently obvious,

but students “often struggle in their first year as they attempt to meet strict college

readiness requirements, often requiring a year or more of remediation” (p. 31).

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

graduates, among whom “47 percent” were identified as needing remedial English


instruction (p. 27). As Carey (2010) explains, “despite their high-school diplomas, they

lack basic skills in reading and math” (p. A30). Successful work in college level

courses depends on good high school preparation, according to Jacobson (2006, p. 138).

Perhaps one of the most surprising reports about readiness issues was detailed by

Perkins-Gough (2008) where over 80 percent of students evaluated noted they had done

most all high school work, taken the most challenging high school courses, earned grade

point averages (GPAs) of 3.0 or higher and basically thought themselves ready for

college coursework (p. 88). Still, however, they were placed into remedial classes

because the placement tests did not reflect the knowledge base required.

Despite the perceptions of the high school graduates who believe they are college-

ready, much literature has been written about whether or not high school graduates are

ready for college. Katsinas & Bush (2006) wrote a detailed article “Assessing What

Matters: Improving College Readiness 50 Years Beyond Brown” in which arguments

about the [then] new No Child Left Behind Act were addressed. They suggested that the

“trajectory from secondary schools into higher education” is an “elusive goal” (p. 772),

especially for minority students. The students represented in this study are presented as

impaired by the “internal pressure at so many schools resulting from an emphasis on wall

charts” (p. 781). This implies that students are spending so much time on standards that

they do not have time to learn the context of the material, and consequently, they are not

preparing them for higher learning skills.

Katsinas and Bush (2006) address placement exams and the “quality of the test-

takers’ college preparation” (p. 777). They note that a lack of college level course work

leads to the natural consequence of an unprepared graduate (p. 777). While the Katsinas


and Bush article presents a focus on under-privileged and minority students, there is a

broader application to those in the rural areas as well.

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

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

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

policy of the 1960s and 1970s led to a policy to “allow all high school graduates to

pursue college degrees regardless of academic preparation” (p. 112). He notes that

assigning students to remedial coursework “clearly divides them from students

considered to be ‘college ready’” (p. 116).

However, even before the open enrollment boom of the 1960s, there were

students in need of remedial teaching as noted by McGann (1947). Her study showed

marked improvement upon remedial instruction, particularly among boys (p. 502). Her

focus on remedial coursework as a place for students to accrue maturity and receive

guidance is supported by the current work of George (2010), who puts the remedial

program in the position of “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose academic and

social advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a test” (p. 83).

In an article entitled “Closing the College Readiness Gap,” Cline, Bissell, Hafner,

and Katz (2007) questioned whether the problem of college readiness goes beyond just

fulfilling eligibility requirements The realization that “meeting basic eligibility

requirements for college may not equate to being prepared for college-level work” is the

focus of their report (p. 30). This study also reminds us that “the dropout rate at the

university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically

underprepared” (p. 30). They further note that “the need for remediation at the post-


secondary level, even for those students who enter as fully qualified, has become

increasingly worrisome” (p. 31).

Jacobsen (2006) discusses the dichotomy of higher standards and greater

problems, noting that while most students will perform at a higher standard if required,

those who are unprepared academically may end up falling to the wayside in an

increasing gap. Perkins-Gough (2008) expressed concerns about students who are not

prepared, presenting the same conclusions as Brock (2010) and Jacobsen (2006), a loss of

the unprepared. Callahan & Chumney (2009), like Olson and Gerwertz (2006, 2010),

discussed positioning remedial students for success and suggest that a more stringent

method of preparation will set them in a better position for achievement.

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

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

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

and not just within the field of mathematics. He references the position of remedial

professor as a “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose academic and social

advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a [mathematics] placement

examination” (p. 83). Another pertinent point from George is that “many students’

experiences in public schools involved being “passed along” despite expending very little

effort” (p. 85). This has allowed these students not to develop the skills needed to

succeed at the college level. Not only do the students whose grade point averages are

low fall within this bracket; the true pity in this issue is that it is true for many students of

widely varying capabilities and scores.


Zajacova, Lynch & Espenshade (2005) place the burden of capability squarely

within the realm of self-efficacy. This view focuses on “academic self-efficacy rather

than generalized self-efficacy, where academic self-efficacy refers to students’

confidence in their ability to carry out such academic tasks as preparing for exams and

writing term papers” (p. 679). This is compounded by stress, which they define as “when

external demands tax or exceed a person’s adaptive abilities” (p. 679). They also quote

Perrine noting, “stress has also been identified as a factor negatively affecting persistence

for college freshmen” (p. 679).

3. What is construed as readiness, and why is it critical that college freshmen have

adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?

Conley (2008) presented an article on “Rethinking College Readiness” where he

addressed variance in high school preparedness and the consequences. Here he explains

that “A key problem is that the current measures of college preparation are limited in

their ability to communicate to students and educators the true range of what students

must do to be fully ready to succeed in college” (p. 3). He expresses concern that these

current measures are merely the conventional standard of courses taken and grades

received. This is indicated as short-sighted and a far more complex model is presented.

In his model, the “college-ready student is able to understand what is expected in a

college course, can cope with the content knowledge that is presented, and can develop

the key intellectual lessons and dispositions the course is designed to convey” (p. 4).

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz (2007) allow that the focus should be on “preparing

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

requirements that are primarily course- and grade-based.” Cline, et al. construe 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 who “should be eligible to enter the California State University

system” [p. 30]). Yang (2010) concurs strongly that “Many students who register for

undergraduate study are under-prepared for university education.” The focus of Yang’s

study is on reading, and the lack of strategies or strategic intent. However, it is likely that

the same can be said of college writing.

The desire to close the gap, as expressed by Cline, et al., is echoed extensively by

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

articulation and degree completion, and that promotes a positive trajectory from our

nation’s secondary schools into higher education” (p. 772).

4. What is being done to resolve these concerns?

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. Two approaches to the lack of college

readiness are improved instruction in high school and remedial courses in college.


However, college remediation has become so commonplace that some college professors

and administrators question whether more should be done to prepare students prior to

their entering the college setting. On the other hand, “supporters of developmental

education … construe the controversy over remediation as an attack on access to

college.” The concern 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” (Attewell et al,

2006, p. 887).

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

advises that students be challenged throughout their academic careers. Further, he notes

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. The

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

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

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

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

high school and may take weeks or months to do so” (p. 5). Many who are eligible are

unready.

Gewertz (2010), suggests 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). These skills cover


every area of academia, and in the English section, contain hundreds of pages of

appendices of “at least adequate” performance at varying grade levels (p. 2).

Cline, Bissell, Hafner, & Katz (2007) describe a program, incorporated in high

schools in California, that encompasses curriculum options, professional development for

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

rhetorically,” and they develop an ability to respond appropriately (p. 31). Assessments

improved markedly under the new curriculum as administered by the newly trained

educators. Consequently, students were better prepared for college, and more successful,

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

increase on the statewide test in English language arts. The gains among these students

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

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

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

the University level, and a reduction of classes at the community college level.

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

on to college” (p. 780). In the article the authors address 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). The authors recommend an emphasis on “larger macro level

indicators associated with . . . positive outcomes of high school” (p. 781). Meeting these

macro-level indicators would be better associated with students developing the types of

positive outcomes needed for college readiness.


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

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

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

standards for college preparatory classes so that completing high school English

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

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

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

“developed jointly by high school teachers and CSU faculty members” (p. 27 & A31).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2009) tem a “culture of engagement” and is what Dr. David Swinton (Holsendolph,

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

Effort (SEE).” There, student grades in the first two years are actually calculated on a

rubric which incorporates not only objective success, but allows a substantial (60%)

apportionment to be based on a student’s effort (p. 30-33). He does, however, allow that

“adult remediation programs have a poor track record” (p. 33). Brock (2010), despite his


positive outlook on college remediation, specifically notes that “research and anecdotal

evidence suggest that many students who are assigned to remedial education drop out of

the classes (and often out of college) and that those who remain make slow progress” (p.

116).

George (2010) recommends keeping remedial students in school to ensure their

motivation within the classes and to monitor their progress (p. 88). 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). He further suggests that “where student motivation enters

the realm of ethics is in those motivational potentialities that extend beyond teaching” (p.

85). To that end, he addressed “motivation by intervention” wherein the instructor

directly endeavors to engage the individual student. Further, he encourages “motivation

by policy” where the institution has some governing directive involving course grading,

credit, or exit policies.

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

coursework upon college entry. He indicates that “nearly 30 percent of four-year

students and 60 percent of those who attend community college are forced to take

noncredit remedial courses because, despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic

skills in reading and math” (p. A30). He notes that students are shocked to find

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

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

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


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

within the high school years. Were this program implemented nationwide, the entire

question of remediation at the college level would become moot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

followed (p. 501). Suddick (1982) found value in the use of college assessment tests,

including the American College Testing Program (ACT), Scholastic Aptitude Test

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

had previously been used only for freshman entrance evaluations. The testing program

review led to a program that eliminated fundamental English classes for some students

while expanding them for others based on test scores.

Suddick (1982) further suggests 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.” Perhaps even more important, he construes that the

additional instruction leads to the “norming population median” (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.” This presents a challenge to


those who analyze placement criteria and lends itself to a greater need for an expanded

measurement method.

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

gives an excellent analysis that does apply. He suggests that students learn in differing

methods, manners, and patterns, and that those with learning disabilities need particular

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

differing methods, manners, and patterns. While some colleges/universities apply the

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

the students are not considered nor developed.

5. How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to alleviating

these concerns?

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. Evaluating the curriculum presents

opportunity to guide the curriculum at Shawnee State to help support the K-16 alignment

presented by the ODE.

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 (2006) were directing their

work to the advances made and not made in the minority education community, their


points about the distribution of students leaving high school stand equally valid among all

– work, college, military, incarceration, or unemployment are the options (p. 772).

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, Bissell, Hafner & Katz’s (2007) presentation, that schools should “work

together to ensure equitable opportunities for all students (p. 33),” would allow for

students to be well prepared for college. The whole focus of this article is on the

California State University (CSU) system effort to “increase the college and career

readiness rates of highs school students” (p. 31). Together, CSU representatives worked

with the California Department of Education and the State Board of Education to

determine the level of readiness among students ending tenth and eleventh grade. Then, a

curriculum is prepared to ready those students who are indicated as would have been

placed in remedial coursework at the college level. In doing so, the CSU program has

reduced the requirement to provide remedial coursework to a minimum (p. 32).

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

While this may seem an obvious statement, Cowden explores that ability as represented

in reading skills. The consequence of his study determines that higher reading skills,

including fluency, comprehension, and abstract thinking, are critical elements for

advanced classroom work (p. 232). Further, he explores how these reading skills impact

testing and placement. 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” (Ohio Board of Regents, 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 (2010) 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. His work elaborates on the changes in the college

community following World War II, and the introduction of less prepared students. He

ties his argument for pursuing higher education to wages and an increased pay scale for

college graduates that expanded dramatically between 1950 and 1975 (p. 111). Brock

further presents the range of remedial coursework required at between 24 and 42 percent

of the college population, depending on institution (p. 116). Those students who were

fostered and guided into college remedial education programs showed only marginal

improvement in grades and course completion over those who were simply required to

take the remedial programs after two (p. 118). However, completion rates at the four-

year level showed a marked (12%) difference in those same students. 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 & Campbell. (2009), “Some research suggests the number of developmental classes

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

514). 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). Unfortunately, Attewell (2006) 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. Is what are we doing for our freshman

writers providing the solid, contiguous foundation needed for advanced academic

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

college, and there are ways to make the effort more fluid between the high school and

college achievements. It is important to consider whether the curriculum we provide

supports those students or if that coursework need to be realigned.

Chapter Three - Methodology and Design

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

students at Shawnee State University to present and evaluate options as to whether the

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

the college careers. 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 (2008) asks,

“How do you Recognize a Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum?” While that document is

designed for work in science and mathematics curricula, many of the methods apply to all


curricula. Foremost is the opening comment. “Selecting and implementing rigorous and

relevant curricula is paramount to success in today’s education climate” (p. 1).

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

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

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

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

review are:

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

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

practice and emphasis indicated in the Shawnee State University catalog such

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

of these two courses?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

document in appendices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that it is designed for “students who earn 11-18 on the English ACT 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). A review of the records

in the testing center reflects that for the last several years there have been no requests for

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

of the retest option is unexpected to the students.

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

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

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

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

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

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


specific format for the CAR. That format is a guideline 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 entitled 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. These elements will be compared to those of other

Universities who have similar requirements or structure as a part of the Framework

section.


The section entitled Textbooks and Specific Assignments will contain the detailed

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

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

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

overarching goals of the course as indicated in the syllabi. Alternative texts from recent

years may be included in this section if pertinent to the analysis.

Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy is a section that will include any

state or national indicators. Additionally, anything this particular University has

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

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods will be brief and likely combined in that they

are likely to be specifically stated if required or allowed.

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

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

categories yet merits attention. The Vivayic Whitepaper on Curriculum Analysis (2008)

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

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

Onboarding is abbreviated. New market opportunities are seized. New initiatives are

accomplished.” In the White Paper published in 2008, the details of Curriculum Analysis

are addressed as well as purposes and methodology for reaching conclusions of value.


Chapter Four - Data Analysis & Interpretation

Contextual Information and Framework

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

program . . . a description of field and clinical experiences, the number of hours . . . the

criteria for admission, retention, and exit from the program . . .” (p. 8). For this work, all

the above will be considered.

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 list 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).

Beyond the ACT measures, a cost-free alternative is provided. “If a student has not taken

the ACT, he/she will be required to take the COMPASS battery of placement tests.

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

COMPASS” (SSU, 2007, p. 25). 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, 2007, p. 26).

Table 4.1 below is extracted from within the Office of Admissions Placement

directive regarding placement.


Table 4.1

English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State UniversityEnglish ACT

sub scoreEnglish Placement Reading

ACT sub score

English Placement

24 or higher ENGL 1102

19-23 ENGL 1101

11-18 ENGL 0096 11-15 ENGL 0096

10 or lower ENGL 0095 10 or

lower

ENGL 0095

Note: This information is extracted from the 2007 catalog.

4.1

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

guidelines,

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

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

ACT English 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.

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

within the syllabus. The student exit exams are given a grade of 95, 96, or 1101,

depending on the class the grading professor believes that essay best represents

preparedness. A “95” indicates the student would need to retake ENGL 0095; a “96,

would indicate the student may progress to ENGL 0096 (if currently enrolled in ENGL

0095), or would need to retake ENGL 0096; and 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 courses collectively referred to as the General

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

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

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.

Table 4-2 provides the same basic information as Table 4-1. However, Table 4-2

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

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

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). The peers indicated in Table

4-2 are those which these accreditation association measure and balance Shawnee State

(SSU, 2009).


Table 4.2

4.1


Table 4.3

4.3


Textbooks and any Specific Assignments

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

textbooks” (CDE, 2010, 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 and

Essays (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009). This text is also available with access to

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

not the copy procured for this program.

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

basics of written expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling, and sentence

structure. A review of the fundamentals of standard American English should be

demonstrated and actively pursued within the framework of the course. The exit exam

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

The textbook itself is composed in parts, sections, and chapters. The first part is

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

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

“Paragraph Patterns” and has nine chapters. The third part, “The Essay” has three

chapters. The fourth part, “The Editing Handbook” has nine sections. 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 espionage and a

focus on problems with verbs. The chapters deal with such issues of tense issues,

participles, and verb forms that are non-standard or progressive.

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

right answer” variety. These exercises provide the verb tense choices, among which the

student is to select the appropriate tense form. Additional practice exercises provide

opportunities for students to correct errors and select from verb choices or fill-in-the-

blank with the appropriate form of “to be.” The chapter concludes with a segment called

“Reflect on it” that provides a review worksheet for the student.

The format is detailed and specific. 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 0096 where they are expected to write full paragraphs and

essays.

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,

though they do take the Compass placement exam part way through the program. The

essays to be completed during the class are only 350 words long. Instead, the focus is on

the specific use of specific parts of grammar.


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, 2010, 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 (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009, p. 7). The Resource Manual also provides a summary and

a multiple choice quiz for each chapter.

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, 2009, p. iii). The second part deals with “Essay

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

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

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

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 an example paper for both the Modern

Language Association (MLA) style and the American Psychological Association (APA)

style formats. The other styles are the Chicago (CMS) and Scientific (CSE) styles. The

edges of the pages for part five are 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 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) (Reid, 2011) is the anthology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout PHG 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” (Reid, 2011, A1-A3). 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 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 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, 2007, 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.” The English composition program is an integrated part

of the University plan to “improve student proficiency levels in basic knowledge and

skills.”

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

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

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

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, 2010, p. 30 & 34).

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluates the importance of student class attendance based upon the specific nature of the

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

be sent to procure materials from the library. In fact, during the ENGL 1101 term, the

instructors are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the library staff for two sessions:

an in-class session on using the library research tools; and a tour of the library facility.

The ENGL 1102 program, while not allowing in-class time for these programs,

encourages the use of the on-line tutorial provided by 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, 2010, 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

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,

2010, p. 14). These resources allow for Shawnee students to have every opportunity to

grow, learn, and perform within their English classes.

Chapter Five - Summary, Discussion, and Application

The Vivayic (2008) 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, 2008, 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, 2008, 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 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, 2008, 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, 2007, p. 7). Presumably, by competence, the

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

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

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

suited, yet less well adapted. 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, 2008, 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 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.

Because this university has open enrollment, there is a requirement to provide

basic, fundamental instruction in English composition and grammar to some students.

However, a revamping of the program could be beneficial. Much like some of the other

schools, the ACT/SAT/COMPASS requirement could be lowered a few points for entry

into the ENGL1101 program, and the ENGL 1102 program placement could be raised.


Those students who require the most basic writing instruction could still take those

classes as needed.

For those that place into basic writing and/or mechanics, it is clear that emphasis

needs to be on achieving the specific goals set forth: preparing for the exit exam and

ENGL 1101. The Longman Concise Companion can be used for those students, who can

then keep that text throughout their academic career and continue to use it. The text

currently in use for ENGL1101/1102 should be considered for reassignment to the course

in Argument, and another text considered for the basic Discourse and Composition

program. The goals outlined for ENGL 1101/1101 could be better met with a different

text.

The “rite of passage” of freshman composition is a critical piece of college life.

That is unlikely to change, and would be a tremendous loss to the educated populace

were it to change. However, the Composition sequence at Shawnee State, in its

continuous effort to meet the constantly changing needs of the ever-expanding student

populace, may consider making ENGL 1101/1102 a broader scope.


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, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to

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

Burlison, J., Murphy C., & Dwyer W. (2009). Evaluation of the motivated strategies for

learning questionnaire for predicting academic performance in college students of

varying scholastic aptitude. (Report). College Student Journal. Project Innovation

(Alabama) 1313-1316.

Callahan, M.K., & Chumney, D. (2009). 'Write like college': How remedial writing

courses at a community college and a research university position 'at-risk' students

in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 1619-1664.

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

Higher Education, 56(26), A30-A30.

Chen, L. (2010). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized

diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers and Education, 56(2011),

289-299.

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

Leadership, 37(2), 30-33.


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

developmental English. Unpublished, Department of English and the Humanities,

Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

Conley, D.T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher

Education, 144(WI), 3-13.

Competence. (2010). In Oxford English (Online) Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/37567.

Cowden, P. (2010). Preparing college students with moderate learning disabilities with

the tools for higher level success. College Student Journal, 44(2), 230-233.

Gaetz, L., & Phadke, S. (Ed.). (2009). The writer's world: Essays. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

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

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

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

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

April, 2005, 30-33.

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

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

Jenkins, D., Jaggars, S.S. , & Roska, J. (2009). Promoting gatekeeper course success

among community college students needing remediation. Informally published

manuscript, Community College Research Center, Columbia University, New

York, NY.


Katsinas, S.G, & Bush, V.B. (2006). Assessing what matters: Improving college

readiness 50 years beyond Brown. Community College Journal of Research and

Practice, 30, 771-786.

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

mechanics of English made by college freshmen. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 38(8), 499-503.

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

writer’s world: Essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

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

of the K-16 Seamless Transition. Retrieved from

http://regents.ohio.gov/collegereadiness/policies/EngCollegeRediness07.pdf.

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

Week, 25(33), 27-27.

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

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

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

Pearson Prentice Hall.

Suddick, D. (1982). A re-examination of the use of the test of standard written English

and resulting placement for older upper-division and master’s level students.

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 42. 367-369.

Shawnee State University (2010). The Placement Program: English Placement.

Unpublished manuscript. Office of Admissions. Shawnee State University.


Portsmouth, OH. Retrieved from

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

Shawnee State University (2007). University college: Placement testing. Unpublished

manuscript, Office of Admissions, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

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

Wilson, R. L. (n.d.). Comment: Accountability and English. Unpublished manuscript,

Department of English and Humanitiies, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth,

OH.

West Virginia Department of Education, Department of Educator Certification. (2010).

Curriculum analysis report (CAR) reviewer's guide. Charleston, WV: West

Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from

https://wvde.state.wv.us/certification/educator/docs/CAR.pdf.

Yang, Y. (2010). Developing a reciprocal teaching/learning system for college remedial

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

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

academic success in college. Research in Higher Education. 46(6), 677-706.


Index to Tables

Table Description Page

1.1 Fall 2010 course seats.........................................................................................8

1.2 Spring 2010 course seats.....................................................................................8

4.1 English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University........................31

4.2 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within the state of Ohio........35

4.3 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within accreditation peers.....36


Index to Appendices

Title Description Page

A Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095........................................................................57

B Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096........................................................................63

C Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101........................................................................70

D Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102........................................................................75


Appendix A

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0095

Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

Last Updated August 2010

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

Prerequisite: ACT English sub-score of 10 or lower or equivalent.

Required Text

Gaetz, Lynne, and Suneeti Phadke. The Writer’s World: Paragraphs & Essays. 2nd ed.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print. ISBN 13: 978-0-13-

615218-7

Catalogue Description: English 0095 provides intensive practice with the basics of

written expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling, and sentence structure.

Emphasis on the use of standard English.

Placement in English 0095: SSU uses ACT English sub-scores (or other entrance exam

scores) to place students in English 0095. Studies indicate that there is a strong

correlation between writing ability and ACT English sub-scores. Nevertheless, the ACT

is not a writing test, and some students are better writers than their ACT scores indicate.

Therefore, students who believe that their ACT English sub-scores are not indicative of

their writing abilities are allowed to petition to take the Writing Skills Placement Exam

before registering for English 0095; students who score well on this essay exam may be

allowed to skip English 0095.

Course Goals & Objectives: The primary goal of English 0095 is to prepare students for

English 0096. In order to reach this goal, students will:


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

Practice composing well-developed paragraphs. The final draft of each paragraph must:

include a clearly expressed topic sentence;

be supported by relevant details;

be coherent and unified;

and contain a variety of sentence lengths and structures.

Compose and revise well-developed essays. The final draft of each essay must:

demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas;

address a limited, focused topic;

be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs;

target an appropriate audience;

reflect a basic understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

Take the English 0095 Exit Exam.

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

English 0095 this semester.

Policies:

Portfolio: Save a copy of every essay: rough drafts, revisions, and final drafts. Be sure to

save a backup copy of your final drafts on disk as well.

Accommodation for Disabilities: In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

compromise the integrity of the academic program.) Examples of documented disabilities

include physical, psychiatric, and/or learning impairments that substantially limit one or

more major life activities of the student. Students seeking academic adjustments or


accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

Disability Services, located in the Student Success Center, 1st Floor Massie Hall (740/351-

3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the Coordinator, students are

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing

without acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that are not

cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone else wrote or

one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be unintentional as well as

intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be sure to credit and cite sources

properly. If you have any questions about proper documentation, please speak with me.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any instances of

plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the chair of the Department of

English and Humanities. The chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will then

determine whether circumstances warrant a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth

in the SSU Student Handbook. A student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing

grade for the assignment and may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student

will receive an F—not a W—for the course.

Grading:

Pass/No-Credit Policy: English 0095 is a Pass/No-Credit class. You will not receive a

traditional letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) on your grade report or on your transcript. Instead,

those of you who successfully complete the course and who become eligible to enroll in

English 0096 will receive Ps (Pass); those who need more writing practice before

enrolling in English 0096 will receive NCs (No Credit). Neither a P nor an NC will have

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

In order to receive a P in English 0095, you must:

Earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on a majority of your required paragraphs and

essays;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all out-of-class exercises;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all in-class exercises, AND


Pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.

Scoring of Essays: The following rubric indicates how your English 0095 essays will be

scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory

Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

idea.

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

appropriate.

Lacks a thesis or

controlling idea.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in

paragraph construction.

Contains flawed


Expresses developed

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-

May have as many as 10

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more



parallelism, mixed

constructions).

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and

pronoun shifts,

apostrophe errors,

misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional

uses of nonstandard

grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

Exit Exam: Your Exit Exam will be read by two or three members of the English faculty.

Rather than awarding traditional letter grades on the final exam, each reader will give the

exam a 95 (indicating that the writing is still at the English 0095 level), a 96 (indicating

that the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 0096) or an 1101

(indicating that the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 1101).

Appeal Process: Most students who are earning Ps at the time of the final exam are able

to score well enough on the Exit Exam that they can move to English 0096. However, in

rare instances, extenuating circumstances may cause a student to fail. There is an appeal

process for students who fail the Exit Exam:

The student must present his/her writing portfolio to the instructor.

The student must then discuss the issue with the instructor, explaining why s/he feels the

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

After hearing the student’s plea and examining the content of the portfolio, the instructor

will decide whether or not to pursue the appeal on behalf of the student.

If the instructor agrees that an appeal should be made, then the instructor will contact the

Director of Composition, who will make one of the following decisions:

To allow the student to take a retest.

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

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


To deny the student’s request. In this case, the student may follow standard university

procedure on grade appeals and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and

Humanities department.

If the instructor disagrees with the student and does not choose to appeal on the behalf of

the student, then the student may follow standard university procedure on grade appeals

and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department.

Students are NOT to appeal an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student

Success Center.


Appendix B

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0096

Last Updated July 2010

Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

Prerequisite. ACT English sub-score of 11-18 or equivalent.

Required Text.

Gaetz, Lynne, and Suneeti Phadke. The Writer’s World: Essays. Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2009. Print. ISBN 13: 978-0-13-243722-6.

Catalogue Description. English 0096 provides practice in the process of writing and

revising paragraphs and short essays. Standard organizational patterns for paragraphs

and essays are required with an emphasis on the use of standard English.

Placement in English 0096. SSU uses ACT English subscores (or other entrance

exam scores) to place students in English 0096. Studies indicate that there is a

strong correlation between writing ability and ACT English subscores. Most

students who earn 11-18 on the English ACT subscore write papers that:

Lack planning or revision;

Lack controlling ideas/theses;

Indicate that the writers have difficulty answering prompts and/or following directions;

Contain flawed paragraph construction;

Express ideas which are severely underdeveloped;


Have major sentence errors (fragments, run-ons, comma splices, non-parallelism, mixed

constructions);

Demonstrate little sense of audience awareness (through the use of inappropriate

tone/diction, slang, or inappropriate words);

Or contain many consistent and interfering uses of non-standard grammar (including

subject/verb agreement problems, tense and pronoun shifts, apostrophe errors, and

misspellings).

Nevertheless, the ACT is not a writing test, and some students are better writers than their

ACT scores indicate. Therefore, students who believe that their ACT English subscores

are not indicative of their writing abilities are allowed to petition to take the Writing

Skills Placement Exam before registering for English 0096; students who score well on

this essay exam may be allowed to skip English 0096.

Course Goals & Objectives. The primary goal of English 0096 is to prepare students

for English 1101. In order to reach this goal, students will:

Practice composing paragraphs.

Compose and revise a minimum of five essays. The final draft of each of these essays

must:

Demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas.

Address a limited, focused topic.

Be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs.

Target an appropriate audience.

Include sentences that are tied together cohesively.

Include various types of sentences.

Reflect an understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation, spelling, and

mechanics.

Be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.


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

English 0096 this semester.

Policies.

Portfolio: Save a copy of every essay and related materials (including rough drafts,

revisions, and final drafts). Be sure to save electronic backup copies of your final drafts

as well. I will collect your portfolio at the end of the semester.

Accommodation for Disabilities: In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

compromise the integrity of the academic program.) Examples of documented disabilities

include physical, psychiatric, and/or learning impairments that substantially limit one or

more major life activities of the student. Students seeking academic adjustments or

accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

Disability Services, located in the Student Success Center, 1st Floor Massie Hall (740/351-

3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the Coordinator, students are

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing

without acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that are not

cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone else wrote or

one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be unintentional as well as

intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be sure to credit and cite sources

properly. If you have any questions about proper documentation, please speak with your

instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any instances of

plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the chair of the Department of

English and Humanities. The chair, in consultation with the faculty member, will then

determine whether circumstances warrant a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth

in the SSU Student Handbook. A student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing

grade for the assignment and may face dismissal from the course.


Grading.

Pass/No-Credit Policy: English 0096 is a Pass/No-Credit class. You will not receive a

traditional letter grade (A, B, C, D, F) on your grade report or on your transcript. Instead,

those of you who successfully complete the course and who become eligible to enroll in

English 1101 will receive Ps (Pass); those who need more writing practice before

enrolling in English 1101 will receive NCs (No Credit). Neither a P nor an NC will have

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

In order to receive a P in English 0096, you must:

Earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on at least 3 of your required essays;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all out-of-class exercises;

Earn an average of at least 70% on all in-class exercises, AND

Pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.

Scoring of Essays: The following rubric indicates how your multiple-draft essays in

English 0096 will be scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

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

Contains flawed paragraph

construction.



Expresses developed

ideas. All or most of the

paragraphs are long

enough to indicate that the

writer has considered each

subtopic.

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may

be underdeveloped.

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons,

comma splices, non-

parallelism, mixed

constructions).

May have as many as 10


May have 11 or more


Demonstrates a sense of

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 not entirely

acceptable for an incoming English 1101 student, but the reader felt that, with a great

deal of hard work, the student might be able to succeed in English 1101.

Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 (if needed) Final Score

1101 1101 NA 1101

1101 1101- NA 1101

1101- 1101- NA 1101

1101 1101- 96+ 1101

1101- 1101- 96+ 1101

1101 1101 96 1101

1101 1101- 96 1101

1101- 1101- 96 1101

1101 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96 96

1101 96 96 96

1101- 96 96 96

96+ 96+ NA 96

96+ 96 NA 96

96 96 NA 96

During final exam week, you will have an individual conference with your instructor. At

that conference, the instructor will give you the results of your Exit Exam. Most students

who are earning Ps at the time of the final exam are able to successfully complete the

Exit Exam. However, in rare instances, extenuating circumstances may cause a student

to fail. There is an appeal process for students who fail the Exit Exam:


The student must present his/her writing portfolio to the instructor.

The student must then discuss the issue with the instructor, explaining why s/he feels the

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

After hearing the student’s plea and examining the content of the portfolio, the instructor

will decide whether or not to pursue the appeal on behalf of the student.

If the instructor agrees that an appeal should be made, then the instructor will contact the

Director of Composition, who will make one of the following decisions:

To allow the student to take a retest.

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

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

To deny the student’s request. In this case, the student may follow standard university

procedure on grade appeals and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and

Humanities department.

If the instructor disagrees with the student and does not choose to appeal on the behalf of

the student, then the student may follow standard university procedure on grade appeals

and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department.

Students are NOT to appeal an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student

Success Center.


Appendix C

***Syllabus Template***

English 1101

Discourse and Composition

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A7-A10 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A7-A10.

Catalog Description:

An introduction to college composition. Students practice responding appropriately to

different types of rhetorical situations, writing in various genres, and critiquing discourse.

Students will learn to research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.:

Appropriate developmental class or placement.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall

often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide

alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Credit Hours: 5

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either


English 1101 or 1102, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Goals and Objectives:

Note: These goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on the Council of Writing

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

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1101 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge

Students who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

Recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,

Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.


Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes


Recognize that writing is a flexible and not necessarily linear process, but rather a

recursive one.

Understand that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising, and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions


Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

They should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that develop a coherent thesis with

unity, structure, and sufficient detail.

Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their six

formal essays should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-

appropriate diction, but also demonstrate a competence in the conventions and grammar

of the English language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1101 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the

Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:


Students in English 1101 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1101 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success

Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A11-A14 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A11-A14.


Appendix D

***Syllabus Template***

English 1102

Discourse and Composition

Course Syllabus

Catalog Description: An accelerated introduction to college composition. Students

practice responding appropriately to different types of rhetorical situations, writing in

various genres, and critiquing discourse. Students will be required to conduct scholarly

research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.: Placement.

Credit Hours: 3

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either

English 1102 or 1101, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall

often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide

alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Goals and Objectives:


Note: These goals and objectives for English 1102 are based on the Council of Writing

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

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1102 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge


Recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,

Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.

Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.


Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes

Students who enter English 1102 typically understand that writing is a flexible and not

necessarily linear process, but rather a recursive one. Furthermore, they typically

recognize that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

English 1102 will help these students better understand the various phases of the writing

process. Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions

Students who enter English 1102 should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that

develop a coherent thesis with clear structure and reasonable detail. They should also be

able to edit such essays, correcting flaws in syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

In English 1102, students will further develop these drafting and editing skills as they

practice writing more sophisticated essays. Students who successfully complete English

1102 should be able to

Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

Refine their use of syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their four formal essays

should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-appropriate

diction, but also demonstrate proficiency in the conventions and grammar of the English

language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1102 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the

Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:


Students in English 1102 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1102 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success

Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

abstract - pbworksdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · web viewdo described...

Documents