prerequisite: - debdavis / frontpagedebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… ·...

Running Head: FRESHMAN COMPOSITION

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 5/9/2023 1:27:27 AM

FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 2

Abstract

[[[[[ This section to be re-written upon review of near-finished product! ]]]]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

matriculating at this University.

Keywords: Freshman Composition – Remedial English – Remedial Reading – Freshman Writing

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

Developmental Courses – Developmental Reading – Developmental Writing – Developmental

English – Postsecondary Remediation – College Preparedness – Curriculum Analysis


Table of Contents

Abstract 3

Chapter 1 – Introduction 4

Chapter 1 – Overview 6

Chapter 1 – Research Question 8

Chapter 2 – Literature Review 9

Chapter 3 –Methodology/Research Design 22

Chapter 4 – Data Analysis and Interpretation 27

Chapter 5 – Summary/Discussion/Application 43

Bibliography 46

Index of Tables

Appendices Index 49

Appendix A – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095 50

Appendix B – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096 57

Appendix C – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101 66

Appendix D – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102 72

3


Chapter 1 – 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

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

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. For all

courses, there is a prerequisite of placement. The university catalog states:

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

1102. Students completing developmental courses are required to pass not only the

course itself but also the course exit exam before enrolling in ENGL1101. The

composition sequence (ENGL 1101 or 1102, and 1105) is a prerequisite for advanced

coursework in English (including the civilization and literature series) (SSU, 2007. P.

219).

However, consequent to the placement policy, the courses indicated as the composition sequence

above are frequently required for completion of University General Education Program (GEP),


Transfer Module, and for 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 from developmental through the composition sequence. Beyond that, this

analysis will provide a framework for the necessity of the currently tiered program, or

alternatives as may be recognized in other states and university systems.

5


Overview

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

combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs. 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).

For this analysis, the enrollment period for spring 2011 is considered at Shawnee State

University. Table 1.1 outlines the available seating during for both the developmental courses

and the beginning of the composition sequence. Below it, table 1.2 outlines the available seating

for both developmental and standard composition coursework for fall 2010. 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 which seats are made available. In that 334 of those available seats were occupied shows the

requirement for those courses. The fall class seats available for 2010 were 905 for

developmental and 866 for standard composition. 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. Some reflection of those

issues follows in this paper. The reflection should answer this question: Are the remedial

courses preparing students to move forward through the composition sequence?


Tables 1.1 and 1.2

Spring 2011 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 26 25 1

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays 316 309 7

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

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

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

Table 1.1

Fall 2010 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 66 54 12

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays 608 518 90

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

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

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

Table 1.2

Tables 1.1 and 1.2

7


Research Questions

Does the curriculum provided to the Shawnee State University freshman students, who

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

students to prepare them for the required composition sequence, and more directly, English 1101

– Discourse and Composition?


Chapter 2 - Literature Review

One of the biggest issues of concern with regard to any curriculum is the functionality of

the curriculum for readying students to move forward with their education. The need for

remediation coursework in colleges and universities is well documented nationwide (Carey 2010,

and Attewell, Lavin, Domina & Levey 2006, and Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz 2007). A trend

toward a lack of college readiness has predicated the need for developmental or gatekeeping

courses. If students were better prepared upon arrival at institutions of higher learning, the entire

developmental program would be rendered moot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Therefore,

in order to understand the issue of coursework that is less than college freshman level

composition sequence requirements, it is important to gain a framework of the entire question of

remediation. To do this, it is important to look at several questions.

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

2. What is construed as readiness and why is it critical that college freshman have

adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?

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

college readiness?

4. What is being done to resolve these concerns?

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

concerns?

9


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.” One suggestion is offered by Chen (2010), who elaborates on learning

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

style and student conceptions and misconceptions regarding the gatekeeping coursework (p.

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

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

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

later” (p. 289). 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.

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. Specific concerns were raised that high-stakes testing has

disenfranchised students of color (p. 771). Further explored is the “elusive goal” of a “trajectory

from secondary schools into higher education” (p. 772). 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). Cline, Bissell, Hafner, and Katz (2007) questioned whether

there was more than fulfilling eligibility requirements in “Closing the College Readiness Gap.”

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). It is also there work that specifically directs 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). Conley presented an article on

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

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

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

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

expressed 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.

The more complex model presenta that the “college-ready student is able to understand what is

expected in a college course, can copy with the content knowledge that is presented, and can

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

One answer to the lack of adequate preparation at the high school level was the

introduction of remedial coursework at the college level. However, remedial classes have also

had their limitations. Brock (2010) specifically addressed issues of remedial education,

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

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

11


make slow progress” (p. 116). George (2010) presents his issues under the venue of remedial

mathematics, but the concepts apply equally to remedial English. Part of his recommendation

for keeping remedial students in school is to ensure their motivation within the classes, and

monitor their progress.

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).

Another approach to the issue is give by Gewertz (2010), who presents the construct of

common standards for college preparatory classes, which is pertinent because they lay out a set

of readiness skills that students could be expected to master by high school graduation (p. 1).

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

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

Carey (2010) gives specifics on how many students are assigned to remedial coursework

upon college entry. He presents 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) gives ideas on how 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.

Reviewing from the early years of remedial assignments, McGann (1947) gives some

solid foundational expertise in the matter of remediation at the college lever rather than expanded


coursework at the high school level. Her work 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 which eliminated fundamental English classes for some

students while expanding them for others based on test scores. Suddick explains “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,

13


and patterns. This is particularly important in that some schools are applying the same analysis

of the same structure and same tests to all incoming students, and thereby do not consider the

individual expressive methods of the students.

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

noting that while most students will perform at a higher standard if required, those who are

unprepared academically may end up falling to the wayside in an increasing gap. Perkins-Gough

(2008) expresses concerns about students who are not prepared, presenting the same situation as

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

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

them in a better position for achievement much like Olson and Gerwertz. After all, as Burlison, ,

Murphy, & Dwyer (2009) present, “valid measures of academic aptitude [SAT/ACT] are among

out most fruitful predictors” of academic performance” ( p. 1313).

2. What is construed as readiness and why is it critical that college freshman have

adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?

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

Domina, & Levey, 2006, p. 887). Still, best defined by Conley, 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).

However, Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz allows 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, Bissell, Hafner & Katz construes the


problem in terms of the “50 percent of entering freshmen system wide [who] need remediation in

English or mathematics.” That 50 percent is out of the 33 percent of high school seniors 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.

Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz’s desire to close the gap 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.” They further present their objectives in terms of three positive (college,

military, and work) and two negative (prison and unemployment) outcomes from high school (p.

772).

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 note that assigning students to remedial

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

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

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

upon remedial instruction, particularly among boys (p. 502). Her focus on remedial coursework

as a place for students to accrue maturity and receive guidance is related George (2010), who

15


puts the remedial program in the position of “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose

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

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

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

all high school work, taken most challenging high school courses, earned grade point averages

(GPAs) of 3.0 or higher and basically thought themselves ready for college coursework (p. 88).

Still, however, they were placed into remedial classes because the placement tests did not reflect

the knowledge base required.

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

readiness?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prepared” (p. 30). Such an observation may seem patently obvious, but students “often struggle

in their first year as they attempt to meet strict college readiness requirements, often requiring a

year or more of remediation” (p. 31). Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz refers to “habits of mind,”


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

critical reasoning helping students succeed (p. 31).

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 broad perspective

application to those in the rural areas as well.

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). 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). Further, George (2010), goes on to address the concerns of “exit criteria,”

a point that is shown to apply directly to the work in the SSU CDE program. Another pertinent

point from George is that “many students’ experiences in public schools involved being “passed

along” despite expending very little effort” (p. 85). This has allowed these students not to

develop the skills needed to succeed at the college level. Not only are the students whose grades

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.

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

17


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

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

4. What is being done to resolve these concerns?

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

realm of self-efficacy. This refreshing view truly focuses on “academic self-efficacy rather than

generalized self-efficacy, where academic self-efficacy refers to students’ confidence in their

ability to carry out such academic tasks as preparing for exams and writing term papers”

(Zajacova, Lynch & Espenshade 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).

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

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

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

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

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, 2006, p. 887).

To that end, Conley 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, [[[[[EXPLAIN – REFER TO

STANDARDS STUFF]]]]] not just eligibility. Many who are eligible are unready.

George (2010) presents that “where student motivation enters the realm of ethics is in

those motivational potentialities that extend beyond teaching” (p. 85). To that end, he addressed

“motivation by intervention” wherein the instructor directly endeavors to engage the individual

student. Further, he addresses “motivation by policy” where the institution has some governing

directive involving course grading, credit, or exit policies. His focus is on student autonomy,

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

Cline, Bissell, Hafner, & Katz (2007) lays out the program, incorporated 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). Cline, Bissell, Hafner &

Katz show “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).

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

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

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

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

this article recommends an emphasis on “larger macro level indicators associated with . . .

19


positive outcomes of high school” (p. 781). These things combined would help students meet

the achievements to bring them closer to readiness through affiliating college readiness as among

those positive outcomes.

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

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

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

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

Olson (2010) and Carey (2010) both tell us that those who need the help, as evaluated at the end

of eleventh grade, can get it in grade 12, using a program “developed jointly by high school

teachers and CSU faculty members” (p. 27 & 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). [[[[[REALIGN THIS ARGUMENT -- Jacobson’s

analysis (2006) presents to us that while an enhanced developmental program may provide for

more successful students among those who complete it; the motivational factors that are impeded

by placement into developmental programs may ultimately obstruct degree completion for those

students (p. 158). Attewell, Lavin, Domina & Levey (2006) does point out that there is a

positive influence [[[[[what kind of positive – why does it work??]]]]] of remedial courses, for

those students who successfully complete them. 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 terms a “culture of effort,” and 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 (Holsendolph, 2005,

p. 30-33). He does, however, allow that “adult remediation programs have a poor track record”

(p. 33).

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 were directing their work to the advances made and not

made in the minority education community, their points [[[[[ what points ]]]]] stand equally valid

among all students. Conley’s recommendation that “high schools and colleges can use the same

language to communicate what it takes” (p. 12) is well taken. As Conley states, “Making certain

that they are not just eligible but prepared will help students achieve their goals and help colleges

21


function more effectively” (p. 12). Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz’s presentation, that schools

should “work together to ensure equitable opportunities for all students,” would allow for

students to be well prepared [[[[ expand and explore – tied to readiness ]]]]]. Cowden (2010)

points out that “the ability to learn is an important life skill” (p. 230). [[[why is this a readiness

factor ]]]]] This is the same foundation echoed by the Ohio Board of Regents when they

designate that high school credit and graduation should be administered based on “A means of

assessing high school students’ college and work readiness, especially in English and

mathematics” (OBR, 2007. p. 9).

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

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

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

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

flowing river. [[[[[ explain why this is pertinent ]]]]] 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 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 . . . . .]]]]]

23


Chapter 3 - 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 asks, “How do you Recognize a

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

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

comment. “Selecting and implementing rigorous and relevant curricula is paramount to success

in today’s education climate” (Vivayic, 2008, p. 1).

Implementation of this 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. Eevaluation of assessment methods should lead to suggestions for alternative options if

appropriate. Important questions that will guide this review are:

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

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

and emphasis indicated in the Shawnee State University catalog such that students

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.

25


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 (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 (Vivayic, 2009) 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

27


White Paper published in 2008, the details of Curriculum Analysis are addressed as well as

purposes and methodology for reaching conclusions of value.


Chapter 4 - Data Analysis & Interpretation

Contextual Information and Framework

[[[[[ WVDE CAR definitions of contextual information and framework ]]]]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

selects from a repertoire of processes to develop writing for such purposes as persuasion,

explanation, or personal expression. The writer’s style and organizational structures are

apparent and appropriate for the rhetorical task. The writer is also adept at responding in

writing to other texts, critiquing and analyzing those texts. Writing fulfills its intended

purpose, is well organized, clear, well-developed, and logical, while exhibiting use of the

conventions of the English language appropriate to the writing situation. The writing also

exhibits word choices that convey intended meaning (ORB, p. 2).

This general guideline is followed by a 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).

29


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

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

measures in mathematics, reading, and writing are components of COMPASS” (SSU, p. 25).

Within the structure of Shawnee State University:

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

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

their choice, once they have demonstrated proficiency in college-level English and

mathematics via the University’s placement tests or qualifying scores on the

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

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

are advised, and those which may be required. These courses fall within the framework of

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

opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to attempt college-level coursework.” An

important note to this entire issue is that “Credit hours earned in developmental courses,

excluding UNIV 1101, cannot apply toward degree requirements” (SSU, p. 26).

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

English ACT sub

scoreEnglish Placement

Reading ACT sub

scoreEnglish Placement

24 or higher ENGL 1102

19-23 ENGL 1101

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

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


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

31


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).

33


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).

35


Textbooks and any Specific Assignments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

online support service with additional exercises.

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

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

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

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

online support service with additional exercises.

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

paragraphs, and compose and revise a minimum of five essays. A review of the fundamentals of

standard American English should be demonstrated and actively pursued within the framework

of the course. The exit exam will be a culminating event for these students (CDE, p. 21).

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

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

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

37


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

“The Writing Process” and provides an overview in five chapters which are not broken into

sections (Gaetz & Phadke, p. iii). The second part deals with “Essay Patterns” and has nine

chapters. The third part, “More College and Workplace Writing” has five chapters. The fourth

part, “The Editing Handbook” has six sections. Each section has its own theme, and multiple

chapters. Within the section themes are specific elements of composition. An example of this is

section three which has a theme of international trade and a focus on verbs. The chapters deal

with such issues of subject-verb agreement, tenses, and problem verbs.

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

variety. These exercises provide the root verb, to which the student is to apply the appropriate

tense form. Additional practice exercises provide opportunities for students to correct errors and

select from verb choices. The chapter concludes with a segment called “The Writer’s Room:

Topics for Writing” that provides a couple of prompts for writing assignments.

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

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

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

students for the exit exam or ENGL 1101.

Throughout the writing assignments given, students are strongly encouraged to

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

rewriting repeatedly. While this is good practice in general writing methods, in the exit exam

situation, the students are given a prompt with no preparation or guidance, and in a two hour

period they are expected to provide a cohesive and complete essay. Nowhere in the syllabus are

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


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.

39


The professor in ENGL 1101/1102 has the discretion to administer the requirements of

the program, using the tools provided. Each professor has her own method of implementing the

tools, but there is a sample syllabus provided as a recommended method. It is this method that

will be analyzed here.

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

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

is broken into chapters, which are broken into sections and subsections. Each chapter has a

variety of exercises for students to practice the skills elements provided in that chapter.

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

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

This chapter is an excellent and thorough presentation of errors and their solutions. The other

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

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

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

Scientific (CSE) styles. The edges of the pages for part five are colorful to provide ready access

and reference to them.

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

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

problems, word choice, punctuation, and closes with a part for proofreading. This book provides

detailed reference and methods of instruction for the faculty who use it as a teaching tool.

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

syllabus has a “Grammar Review Topic” for each week, and the assignments from LCC reflect

those topics. In doing so, the syllabus requires the students to move through the text, and


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

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

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

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

text, PHG, proceed in chapters and while each chapter is broken into elemental sections, they are

not numbered, merely named. Most of the chapters address the writing process with a section of

varied “Techniques” that are analyzed and presented. That section is followed by “Warming Up:

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

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

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

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

Throughout PHG essays are provided using the techniques represented. Additionally, the

chapters frequently model the drafting and revision process showing original writings, marks and

comments, and finished work. Chapters also provide vocabulary sections, and “Questions for

Writing and Discussion.”

Within Chapter thirteen, “Researching,” specific information using MLA and APA

citation styles are presented as is an MLA sample document. The appendix presents an essay on

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

presented in the SSU ENGL 0095 and 0096 courses.

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

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

cohesively with the PHG text, but can certainly be aligned to work together. The essays selected

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

41


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, 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,

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

43


pursuing those achievements are within the purview of the various instructors. One example of

this flexibility is in attendance. While the “attendance policy must not contradict the SSU

Excused Absence Policy . . . each faculty member evaluates the importance of student class

attendance based upon the specific nature of the course in question” (CDE, p. 11-12). There may

be times when some students will be sent to procure materials from the library. In fact, during

the ENGL 1101 term, the instructors are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the library staff

for two sessions: an in-class session on using the library research tools; and a tour of the library

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

encourages the use of the on-line tutorial provided by our library staff to enhance research

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

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

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

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

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

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

(CDE, p. 32).

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

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the method for handing needed services. At SSU, every student is

given every opportunity to excel. To that end, the Disability Services center provides the

necessary documentation and edification for students and faculty. It is specifically and

appropriately noted in this section that documenting needs and presenting that information to

faculty is a student responsibility.

Other Program-Related Information


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

students. Three specific facilities provide and computer resources to students. These are the

Student Success Center, the Student Success Services (TRIO) Center, and the Reading and

Writing Center. All tutoring is at no cost to the students. Some of these services are scheduled,

and others are drop-in services. There are computer labs available for students in several

buildings on campus, and these are generally staffed by paid personnel who can assist with

computer-related issues. The English and Humanities “Department purchases an institutional

subscription to NoodleTools® each year” (CDE, p. 14). These resources allow for Shawnee

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

45


Chapter 5 - Summary, Discussion, and Application

The Vivayic Whitepaper on Curricula Analysis specifically leans toward “learned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

member is directed to include specific references to them within the syllabus for each course.

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

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

assignments.

Step two was to apply the framework to analyze the rigor and relevance of all existing

course objectives. “Performance objectives for the lesson were evaluated first followed by a

review of the lesson’s assessment objectives” (Vivayic, p. 10). It is in this area that the elements

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

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

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

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

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


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

implementation which are granted faculty independence.

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

must be developed with an understanding of the complexities of the subject. Writing, even

academic writing, is a reflection of the author’s whole being. As such, teaching it, guiding it,

and grading it are not as straightforward as whether or not “2 + 2 = 4.” The content for these

courses is dictated by the need to “foster competence in oral and written communication” (SSU,

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

adequately with a subject” should apply (OED). Still, this is a vague standard on an ambiguous

topic. For this, the ENGL 0095 and 0096 programs seem to be better suited, yet less well

adapted. Perhaps this is because the programs are too detailed for the material indicated. This is

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

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

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

tool.

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

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

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

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

pressed not to grow in writing ability through the process.

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

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

structure as a guide during the second half of the program. Instead of a sixteen week term for

47


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

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

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

format currently encouraged. The essay presented in the Appendix of the textbook for ENGL

1101 should, perhaps be presented to those students in ENGL 0095/0096, and the Longman

Concise Companion may be a textbook well suited for those students as well.

Curriculum Analysis is not an exact science. It is well and good to state that a goal exists

and that a curriculum does or does not meet that goal. However, while a curriculum may meet a

goal, it may not meet it as well as the students deserve. That is a more amorphous issue.

The existing curriculum for ENGL 0095/0096 is tedious and labored. Further, it does not

seem to truly meet the prescribed goal of preparing the students for the next level of class. As

mentioned above, a more compressed version directed toward that goal would be more

efficacious. The tools presently incorporated in the ENGL 1101/1102 curriculum would also be

applicable to the ENGL 0095/0096 curriculum, particularly the Longman Concise Companion.

[[[[[[[[ THIS SECTION STILL TO BE EXPANDED ]]]]]]


References

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation.

Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-900.

Bahr, P. R. (2010). Revisiting the efficacy of postsecondary remediation: the moderating effects

of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher Education. 33(2). 177-205.

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

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

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

Education, 56(26), A30-A30.

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

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

Humanities, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

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

37(2), 30-33.

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

144(WI), 3-13.

49


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

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

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

Pearson Education, Inc.

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

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

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

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

April, 2005, 30-33.

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

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

Katsinas, S.G, & Bush, V.B. (2006). Assessing what matters: improving college readiness 50

years beyond Brown. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 771-

786.

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

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

38(8), 499-503.

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

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

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

the K-16 seamless transition.


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

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

redirectedFrom=competence.

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

Week, 25(33), 27-27.

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

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

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

Pearson Prentice Hall.

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

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

and Psychological Measurement. 42. 367-369.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English, Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, OH.

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

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

51


Department of Education. Retrieved from

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

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

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

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

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


Index to Tables

Table Title/Description Page

1.1 Spring 2011 available course seats 7

1.2 Fall 2010 available course seats 7

4.1 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within the state of Ohio

4.2 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within accreditation peers

53


Index to Appendices

Title Page

Appendix A – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095 46

Appendix B – Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096 53

Appendix C – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101 62

Appendix D – Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102 68


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

55


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

expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling, and sentence structure. Emphasis on the use

of standard English.

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

to place students in English 0095. Studies indicate that there is a strong correlation between

writing ability and ACT English sub-scores. Nevertheless, the ACT is not a writing test, and

some students are better writers than their ACT scores indicate. Therefore, students who believe

that their ACT English sub-scores are not indicative of their writing abilities are allowed to

petition to take the Writing Skills Placement Exam before registering for English 0095; students

who score well on this essay exam may be allowed to skip English 0095.

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

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

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

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

include a clearly expressed topic sentence;

be supported by relevant details;

be coherent and unified;

and contain a variety of sentence lengths and structures.

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

demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas;

address a limited, focused topic;

be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs;

target an appropriate audience;


reflect a basic understanding of the fundamentals of standard punctuation,

spelling, and mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

6. Take the English 0095 Exit Exam.

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

English 0095 this semester.

Policies:

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

backup copy of your final drafts on disk as well.

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

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

reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities.

(Reasonable accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or learning

impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the student. Students seeking

academic adjustments or accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the

Coordinator of Disability Services, located in the Student Success Center, 1st Floor Massie Hall

(740/351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the Coordinator, students are

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

57


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 paragraph

construction.

Expresses developed ideas.

All or most of the paragraphs

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may be

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

59


are long enough to indicate

that the writer has considered

each subtopic.

underdeveloped. Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three major

sentence errors (fragments,

run-ons, comma splices, non-

parallelism, mixed

constructions).

May have as many as 10

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more major

sentence errors.

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and pronoun

shifts, apostrophe errors,

misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional uses

of nonstandard grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

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

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

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

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

acceptable for a student about to enter English 1101).

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

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


extenuating circumstances may cause a student to fail. There is an appeal process for students

who fail the Exit Exam:

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

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

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

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

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

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

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

o To allow the student to take a retest.

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

evaluation.

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

portfolio.

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

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

the English and Humanities department.

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

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

or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department. Students are NOT to appeal

an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student Success Center.

61


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.

63


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:

1. Practice composing paragraphs.

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

must:

Demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas.

Address a limited, focused topic.

Be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs.

Target an appropriate audience.

Include sentences that are tied together cohesively.

Include various types of sentences.

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

and mechanics.

Be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

5. Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.

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

English 0096 this semester.

65


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.

67


Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

idea.

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

appropriate.

Lacks a thesis or controlling

idea.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in

paragraph construction.

Contains flawed paragraph

construction.

Expresses developed ideas.

All or most of the paragraphs

are long enough to indicate

that the writer has

considered each subtopic.

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may be

underdeveloped.

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons, comma

splices, non-parallelism,

mixed constructions).

May have as many as 10

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more major

sentence errors.

Demonstrates a sense of Demonstrates a sense of Demonstrates no sense of


audience awareness by

generally using appropriate

tone and diction.

audience, but may

occasionally mix slang or

other inappropriate words

with academic tone and

diction.

audience awareness.

Frequently uses slang or

other inappropriate words.

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and pronoun

shifts, apostrophe errors,

misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional uses

of nonstandard grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

Exit Exam: You will sign up to take the Exit Exam during one of several two-hour exam blocks

that will be scheduled for the last week of regular classes. The Exit Exam is given during this

week (rather than during final exam week) so that there will be time to have each Exit Exam read

by two or three members of the English faculty. Rather than awarding traditional letter grades

on the final exam, each reader will give the exam a 96 (indicating that the writing is still at the

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

enter English 1101). Sometimes, a reader may decide that a 96+ or 1101- is a more appropriate

score than a simple 96 or 1101. A 96+ indicates that the writing would not be acceptable for an

incoming English 1101 student, but it does show potential. An 1101- indicates that the writing is

not entirely acceptable for an incoming English 1101 student, but the reader felt that, with a

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

69


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:

o To allow the student to take a retest.

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

evaluation.

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

portfolio.

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

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

the English and Humanities department.

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

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

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

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

Center.

71


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

73


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

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

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

o Have a clear purpose,

o Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

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

o Assume an appropriate stance.

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

situations.

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

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

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

successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

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

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

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

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

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes



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.

75


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

77


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


79


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

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

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

o Have a clear purpose,

o Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

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

o Assume an appropriate stance.

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

situations.

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

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

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


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

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

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

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

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes


Students who enter English 1102 typically understand that writing is a flexible and not

necessarily linear process, but rather a recursive one. Furthermore, they typically recognize that

most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text. English 1102 will help

these students better understand the various phases of the writing process. Students who


Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising and editing.

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

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

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

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

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

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions

Students who enter English 1102 should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that develop a

coherent thesis with clear structure and reasonable detail. They should also be able to edit such

essays, correcting flaws in syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. In English 1102,

students will further develop these drafting and editing skills as they practice writing more

sophisticated essays. Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

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

81


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

83


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.

prerequisite: - debdavis / frontpagedebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… ·...

Documents