abstract - debdavis.pbworks.comdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · web...

Running head: FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 1

The Beginning Freshman English Composition Sequence including Developmental

Coursework at Shawnee State University: A Curriculum Analysis

Deborah R. Davis

Shawnee State University

Department of Teacher Education

Advisor – Dr. Valerie Myers

March 17, 2011

Candidate for Masters of Education, Curriculum & Instruction

As of 5/5/2023 12:47:30 PM

FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 2

Abstract

This analysis explores the various Freshman Composition courses provided at Shawnee

State University and the extent to which they meet the requirements outlined in the

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

Regents placement summit of March, 2007. This analysis is conducted amidst the

backdrop of concerns regarding the extensive remedial and developmental English needs

at this and other universities nationwide. An analysis of the varying methods of

placement and curricula achievements at comparative universities is provided for

reference. Further discussion includes the implications of placement, describes various

types of developmental/remedial/gatekeeping courses, and examines the factors affected

by placement/retention in these courses. Further, this effort reflects a comparative

analysis of the standard Freshman Composition and Discourse program in both parts

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

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

matriculating at this university.

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

Writing – Placement Testing – Gatekeeper Courses – College Remediation – College

Readiness – Developmental Courses – Developmental Reading – Developmental Writing

– Developmental English – Postsecondary Remediation – College Preparedness –

Curriculum Analysis


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

Introduction..........................................................................................................................4

Overview..........................................................................................................................5

Table 1.1...........................................................................................................................7

Table 1.2...........................................................................................................................7

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

Literature Review................................................................................................................9

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

How large is the gap between high school achievement and . . .?.................................11

What is being done to resolve these concerns?..............................................................16

How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to . . . ?.............21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy............................................................49

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

Other Program-Related Information..............................................................................51

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

Recommendations..........................................................................................................56

Summary........................................................................................................................57

References..........................................................................................................................60

Index to Tables..................................................................................................................64

Index to Appendices..........................................................................................................65


Introduction

Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

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

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

graduation).

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

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

0096 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards

graduation requirements).

ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1

ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2

o While the Reading Development courses are important and pertinent to

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

will not be addressed within this project.

Regarding placement, the university catalog states:


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

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

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

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

prerequisite for advanced coursework in English (including the civilization and

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

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

composition sequence are frequently required for completion of University General

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

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

“developmental” programs prior to beginning the composition sequence.

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

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

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

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

will be clarification of the sequence of writing coursework objectives from

developmental through the beginning of the composition sequence. Beyond that, this

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

identify alternatives as may be suggested by other state and university systems.

Overview

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

a combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs.

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


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

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

2010, p. 2).

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

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

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

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

outlines the available seating for both developmental and standards composition

coursework for the Spring, 2011 term.

In the Fall, of the nearly 900 seats available for standards composition, 88% were

filled. Of the 674 seats available for developmental freshman composition, 572 (85%)

were filled. Therefore, of the total seats occupied in Fall (1368), 41.8% were filled with

developmental composition students. In the Spring, a total of 809 seats were filled with

composition students, and 41.2% (334) of those were developmental composition

students. For the year, therefore, a total of 2177 students were registered for freshman

composition, with 906 registered for developmental composition, a tally of 41.6%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Table 1.1

Fall 2010 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 66 54 12

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:

Paragraphs and Essays

608 518 90

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

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

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

0.1.1

Table 1.2

Spring 2011 available course seats

Course Number & Name Seats Filled Empty

ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics 26 25 1

ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2:

Paragraphs and Essays

316 309 7

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

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

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

Table 1.0.2


Research Question

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

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

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

and Composition?


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, remedial, or gatekeeping courses -- these terms

will be used interchangeably. If students were better prepared upon arrival at institutions

of higher learning, the entire developmental program would be rendered moot.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Therefore, in order to understand the issue of

coursework that is 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.

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

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

and what causes it?

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

have adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?

What is being done to resolve these concerns?

How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to

alleviating these concerns?


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 these researchers to an exploration of “why

some students take and pass gatekeeper courses while others do not, and to identify

strategies colleges can use to increase students’ success in these gatekeepers and beyond

(p. 12).” Cline, et el (2007) suggest the need to develop “habits of mind”—engaging the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new methods and applications are presented.


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

what causes it?

Cline, et al explain that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at the university

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

prepared [sic]” (p. 30). Such an observation may seem patently obvious, but students

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

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

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

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

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

lack basic skills in reading and math” (p. A30). However, as Jacobson (2006) notes,

successful work in college level courses depends on good high school preparation (p.

138).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

being prepared for higher learning skills such as inference, research, and independen or

collaborative learning.

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

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

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

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

broader application to those in the rural areas as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In an article entitled “Closing the College Readiness Gap,” Cline, et al (2007)

questioned whether the problem of college readiness goes beyond just fulfilling eligibility

requirements The realization that “meeting basic eligibility requirements for college may


not equate to being prepared for college-level work” is the focus of their report (p. 30).

This study also reminds us that “the dropout rate at the university level is significantly

higher among those who arrive at college academically underprepared” (p. 30). They

further note that “the need for remediation at the post-secondary level, even for those

students who enter as fully qualified, has become increasingly worrisome” (p. 31).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

widely varying capabilities and scores.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for college freshmen” (p. 679).

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

adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

requirements that are primarily course- and grade-based.” Cline, et al. (2007) construe

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

remediation in English or mathematics.” Those 50 percent are out of the 33 percent of

high school seniors who “should be eligible to enter the California State University

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

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

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

the same can be said of college writing.

The desire to close the gap, as expressed by Cline, et al. (2007), is echoed

extensively by Katsinas and Bush (2006). They define readiness as “a seamless system

that improves articulation and degree completion, and that promotes a positive trajectory

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

Part of this focus seems to be on the ability to predict success and failure during

the first year of college coursework. Burlison, Myrphy, and Dwyer (2009) present three

questions about academic performance as related to motivation. These questions relate to


expectancy/ability, value/importance, and affect/threat of evalution. After a detailed

study including more than 350 participants, they found that while the Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) that they were studying provided some

minimal input to student abilities during the first year, the ACT and SAT scores were

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

What is being done to resolve these concerns?

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

first year without remediation is a harbinger for success through commencement.

Beyond that, it is found that students who are challenged through high school will have

greater success, not only in college but in life. Two approaches to the lack of college

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

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

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

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

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

college.” The concern is then raised that “policies that prevent students who need

remedial/developmental work from enrolling in four-year colleges could greatly reduce

the likelihood that such students would ever obtain bachelor’s degrees” (Attewell et al,

2006, p. 887).

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unready.

Gewertz (2010), suggests the construct of common standards for college

preparatory classes, which is pertinent because they lay out a set of readiness skills that

students could be expected to master by high school graduation (p. 1). These skills cover

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

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

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

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

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

standards for college preparatory classes so that completing high school English

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

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

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

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

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

California that encompasses curriculum options, professional development for educators,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on to college” (p. 780). In the article the authors address the matter that “the assessment

mechanism drives system performance” (p. 781). The intense problem, also presented, is

“the internal pressure” and focus on “micro-outcomes such as standardized, in-classroom

test scores” (p. 781). The authors recommend an emphasis on “larger macro level

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

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

positive outcomes needed for college readiness.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116).

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

motivation within the classes and to monitor their progress (p. 88). Clearly, it is part of

the instructor’s challenge to motivate students, and to some extent that challenge can be

viewed solely within the context of teaching in its pure form. Pedagogical methodology

and style may in themselves be factors that motivate students by making the material

interesting and exciting (p. 84). He further suggests that “where student motivation enters

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

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

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


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

credit, or exit policies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

question of remediation at the college level would likely become moot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

while expanding them for others based on test scores.

Suddick (1982) further suggests that “students identified as deficient in their entry

level English usage can be provided instruction to enhance their skills and thus to elevate

their academic performance.” Perhaps even more important, he construes that the

additional instruction leads to the “norming population median” (p. 369). It must also be

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

organic, does not lend itself to quantifiable measurement.” This presents a challenge to

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

measurement method.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the students are not considered nor developed.

How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to alleviating

these concerns?

Perkins-Gough (2008) presents an effective argument for a “more efficient K-16”

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


2005 analysis of a need for K-16 performance, and subsequent work with the Ohio

Department of Education (ODE) on such a program. Evaluating the curriculum presents

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

presented by the ODE.

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

difference between “eligible” for college and “ready” for college. When President

George W. Bush said “We expect every child to learn” (Katsinas and Bush, 2006, p.

784), no one could disagree with that statement, but no one wanted classrooms mired in

testing requirements and paperwork. While Katsinas and Bush (2006) were directing their

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

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

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

Conley’s recommendation that “high schools and colleges can use the same language to

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

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

colleges function more effectively” (p. 12).

Cline, et al. (2007) presentation, that schools should “work together to ensure

equitable opportunities for all students (p. 33),” would allow for students to be well

prepared for college. The whole focus of this article is on the California State University

(CSU) system effort to “increase the college and career readiness rates of high school

students” (p. 31). Together, CSU representatives worked with the California Department

of Education and the State Board of Education to determine the level of readiness among

students ending tenth and eleventh grade. Then, a curriculum is prepared to ready those


students who are indicated as would have been placed in remedial coursework at the

college level. In doing so, the CSU program has reduced the requirement to provide

remedial coursework to a minimum (p. 32). Cowden (2010) points out that “the ability

to learn is an important life skill” (p. 230). While this may seem an obvious statement,

Cowden explores that ability as represented in reading skills. The consequence of his

study determines that higher reading skills, including fluency, comprehension, and

abstract thinking, are critical elements for advanced classroom work (p. 232). Further, he

explores how these reading skills impact testing and placement. This is the same

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

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

students’ college and work readiness, especially in English and mathematics” (Ohio

Board of Regents, 2007. p. 9).

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

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

student to comply with that process” (p. 85). Brock (2010) points out a flaw in the image

of the educational pipeline, detailing the myriad of twists, turns, and obstructions which

can detour a swiftly flowing river. His work elaborates on the changes in the college

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

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

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

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

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

fostered and guided into college remedial education programs showed only marginal


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

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

year level showed a marked (12%) difference in those same students. Olson (2006)

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 et al. (2006)

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

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

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

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

herein regarding our curricula at Shawnee State. Is what are we doing for our freshman

writers providing the solid, contiguous foundation needed for advanced academic

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

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

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

those students or if that coursework need to be realigned.


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 templates that professors are provided will all be

analyzed.

A curriculum analysis is not the same kind of research as a qualitative nor

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

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

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

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

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

today’s education climate” (p. 1).

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

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

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

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

review are:

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

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

practice and emphasis indicated in the Shawnee State University catalog such


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

of these two courses?

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

or simply redundant?

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).

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

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

limited in opportunities to an annual even or within courses. Further, the catalog points

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

petition for the opportunity to challenge his or her placement by filling out the ‘Request

for Retest’ form” (p. 20). A review of the records in the testing center reflects that for the

last several years there have been no requests for retests. Discussion with teachers of

these courses indicates that mention in the syllabus of the retest option is unexpected to

the students.

The students have this information in the school catalog, and are given this

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

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

that the retest option simply does not register. Then when it is addressed in class, the

students express surprise at the information, yet are unwilling to pursue the change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific format for the CAR. That format is a guideline for program review and will be

adapted to provide this analysis by course. 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.

Following the recommendations of the CAR, the section entitled Contextual

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

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

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

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

or structure as a part of the Framework section.

The section entitled Textbooks and Specific Assignments will contain the detailed

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


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

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

overarching goals of the course as indicated in the syllabi.

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. Newberry & Kueker (2008) authored a White paper for

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

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

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

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

relevance.

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

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

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

opportunities are seized. New initiatives are accomplished.” In the White Paper

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

and methodology for reaching conclusions of value. The White Paper is written by Pam

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


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

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

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


Data Analysis & Interpretation

Contextual Information and Framework

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

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

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

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

singular field and specific courses.

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

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

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

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

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

writing. The general guidelines are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

these elements are applied.

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

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

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

based upon test scores:

If you enter with an ACT English 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).

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

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

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

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

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

COMPASS” (SSU, 2007, p. 25). Within the structure of Shawnee State University:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

framework of “Developmental Education.” “Developmental courses provide

underprepared students an opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to

attempt college-level coursework.” An important note to this entire issue is that “Credit

hours earned in developmental courses, excluding UNIV 1101, cannot apply toward

degree requirements” (SSU, 2007, p. 26).

Table 4.1 below is extracted from the 2007 catalog within the Office of

Admissions Placement directive regarding placement (SSU).

Table 4.1

English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University

English ACT sub score

English Placement Reading ACT sub

score

English Placement

24 or higher ENGL 1102

19-23 ENGL 1101

11-18 ENGL 0096 11-15 ENGL 0096

10 or lower ENGL 0095 10 or

lower

ENGL 0095

Note: This information is extracted from the 2007 catalog.

4.1

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

guidelines,


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

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

English sub score may choose to take ENGL 0096 instead of ENGL 1101.

Students who believe they are stronger writers than their ACT or

COMPASS score indicates may petition the Department of English and

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

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

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

(Shawnee.edu, 2010).

Goals, grading and exit requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

class exercises; and pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.

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

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

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

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

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


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

exercises; and pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.

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

within the syllabus (see Appendices). 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 – Discourse and Argument, the follow-on

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

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


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

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

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

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

is defined as the Cultural Perspectives, Ethics, and a Capstone. The Foundational Level

includes the English Composition, Quantitative Reasoning, Fine and Performing Arts,

Social and Natural Sciences (p. 55).

Table 4.2 indicates the requirements at a spectrum of Universities throughout

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cases, the program below the freshman level, while meeting credit hours for

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Table 4.2


Table 4.3

4.3


Textbooks and any Specific Assignments

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

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

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

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

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

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

ISBN for required textbooks.

Per the guidelines for ENGL 0095, students’ primary task is to “practice with the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not the copy procured for this program.


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

themes address specific elements of composition. An example of this is section three

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

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

standard or progressive.

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

right answer” variety. One example of these exercises within section three provides the

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

Additional practice exercises provide opportunities for students to correct errors and

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

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

for the student.

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

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

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

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

by the teacher. It is not, however, something this university has chosen to use.

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

knowledge for three hours each week for sixteen weeks would require short readings and

assignments for each class. Assessments are in minute increments, allowing for

extensive review of each idea. Writing assignments are brief. Perhaps more importantly,

the structure does not truly lend itself to specifically preparing the students for the exit

exam or ENGL 0096 where they are expected to write full paragraphs and essays.


Throughout the writing assignments the instructors require, 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 of about 500 words. In none of the assignments required by the syllabus

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

instructors establish an opportunity to take the Compass placement exam part way

through the program to give the students a sense of the test they will take near the end.

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

class, and they are not required to be 350 words long. The primary focus of the class,

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

The stated goals are to prepare for ENGL 0096 learning appropriate paragraphing

and well-developed essays. Also, there is a goal to “review the fundamentals of Standard

American English” (CDE, p. 19). To that last end, the assignments in the textbook serve

the purpose. However, there would appear to be little preparation for the written exam

which concludes the course.

The entire construct of the exit exam would appear to be inconclusive. Students

can take ENGL 0095, attend every class, compose every document, and still not complete

the requirement if they cannot pass the exam with a sufficient score to place into ENGL

0096 or ENGL 1101. Students could, however, actually score well enough to enter

ENGL 1101 from either ENGL 0095 or ENGL 0096. Therefore, it would seem more

appropriate to consider the exam an entrance exam for ENGL 1101 rather than an exit


exam for ENGL 0095 or ENGL 0096. A student who performs the tasks required in

ENGL 0095 would, hopefully, be ready to move on to ENGL 0096 where the focus

moves from paragraphs to essays.

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

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

the fundamentals of standard American English should be demonstrated and actively

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

for these students (CDE, 2010, p. 21). A student who performs the tasks required in

ENGL 0096 would, hopefully, be ready to move on to ENGL 1101.

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

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

syllabi for varying lengths of terms. At SSU, the semester is a sixteen week term, and the

text does provide a syllabus for sixteen weeks (Nichols & McCartney-Christensen, 2009,

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

chapter.

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

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

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

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

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

section has its own theme and multiple chapters.


Within the section themes are 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 in the text are a series of practice exercises of the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The format is straightforward and direct. Spending three hours each week for

sixteen weeks covering this knowledge would make it difficult to find sufficient tasks to

consume the time. Perhaps more importantly, as with ENGL 0095, the structure may not

truly lend itself to specifically preparing the students for the required assessment for

moving to the next level of ENGL 1101, which is the exit (entrance) exam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


exit exam. The five essays to be completed during the class are only 350 words long, and

the greater focus is given to the composition of paragraphs.

The foundation of college composition is addressed in ENGL 1101 or ENGL

1102. To enter this course requires a placement exam score equivalent to an ACT

English subscore of 19. The requirement is comparable to other program entrance

requirements, whether the PRAXIS, ACT, GRE, or LSAT. Another way of considering

the ENGL 0095 and 0096 coursework is to prepare the students for passing this entrance

requirement. Whether or not the passage of that exam should be a requirement for

passing these preparatory courses is another issue.

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 following course, ENGL

1105. Both ENGL 1101 and 1102 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). These texts

can be purchased with access to www.mycomplab.com. This is a resource to provide

exercises, tutorials, and online assignment management tools. It is not included in the

ValPack procured for this course. The online laboratory program allows for additional

insights to the essays provided in the text and a series of questions to help students

explore new elements of writing.

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

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

1102 course is a three unit course which requires an ACT subscore of 24 to enter. To


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

have an ACT subscore of at least 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGL 1102 will provide at least four formal papers of approximately 1250 words.

However, two of the formal papers provided by students in both classes will be composed

using academic research and citation methods. Also, students in both classes must

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

The professors in ENGL 1101/1102 have some 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, research

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

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

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

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

elements provided in that chapter.


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

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

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

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

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

The other four chapters specifically indicate guidelines for varying documentation styles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faculty who use it as a teaching tool.

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

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

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

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

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

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


This text will help students understand Standard Written English grammar and provide a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Throughout PHG, essays are provided using the techniques represented.

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

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

vocabulary sections, and “Questions for Writing and Discussion.”

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

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

presents an essay on “Writing Under Pressure” (Reid, 2011, A1-A3). This document is

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

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

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 by the professor to work

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

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

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

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

where argumentation is presented and elucidated.

Throughout the semester, students 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 could be overwhelming to the freshman college student.

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

the big research papers, students in these courses have constant requirements in an effort

to enhance writing skills. The rigor of this course encourages students to understand that

college is a challenge, and allows them to structure their classwork accordingly.

However, the structure of the ENGL 1101—providing five hours of class time per

week—gives the students plenty of guidance. One important weak spot is noted. While

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


currently has too few computer labs to do so. Teaching this five-hour course without

extensive in-class writing time does a distinct disservice to the students who take it. They

cannot get the kind of feedback and structure needed, for which they were placed into

ENGL 1101. Students placed into ENGL 1101 are those who achieved a 19-23 on the

ACT or equivalent percentile on the SAT or COMPASS test. Alternatively, they are

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

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

they can only receive properly in a computer laboratory classroom.

Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy

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

oral and written communication” (SSU, 2007, p. 7). As a part of the mission statement of

this university, this dedication is reflected throughout school catalog available to the

public as well as all Shawnee students. Faculty are encouraged to pursue individual

advancement in education, thus to strengthen the program collectively. The stronger,

more educated teacher strengthens each student, as well as modeling the importance of

life-long learning. The diverse backgrounds of the faculty also allow students to

understand that beginning from a variety of skill levels can still lead to success. The

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

student proficiency levels in basic knowledge and skills.”

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

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

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

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


standards of any Ohio public college or university to facilitate this transfer module. To

that end, the goals and objectives “are based on the Council of Writing Program

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

System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition” (CDE, 2010, p. 30 & 34).

Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

specific conference times with students, and will direct non-conferencing students to

other activities.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Humanities (CDE, 2010, p. 32).

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

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

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

Services center provides the necessary documentation and edification for students and

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

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

Other Program-Related Information

Shawnee State University provides an excellent and extensive set of tutoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

English classes.


Summary, Discussion, and Application

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

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

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

targeted context).” That team broke this 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

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

should define its own framework for measuring performance. The composition curricula

excel in this area overall.

In ENGL 0095 and 0096, students are guided directly and grading rubrics are

provided. Reviewing, editing, and rewriting are encouraged until the final assessment.

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

paragraphs of perhaps 100 words, and essays of up to 350 words over a period of several

one-hour sessions. Then, at the exit (entrance) exam the students are evaluated for

writing skills on a five paragraph, 500 word essay completed in one, two-hour session.

This exam would be more appropriately identified as an entrance exam for ENGL 1101.

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

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

include specific references to 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. At this level, this requirement would mean that student writing of essays,

journals, and research papers, are the gist of the requirement.

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” (Newberry & Kueker, 2008,

p. 10). It is in this area that the elements supported from within the SSU system are more

fragile.

That, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. Writing is not an exact science, nor

is teaching. The wide variety of skill sets, background insights, and personalities

involved in the faculty of the first-year composition program allows for a match-up with

student learning styles, needs, and guidance. Students, with careful advising, can benefit

extensively from the flexibility granted these teachers. The objectives are clearly stated

and direct, but the final assessment of ENGL 0095 and ENGL 0096 is not directly related

to the requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

suited, yet less well adapted. Perhaps this is because the programs are too detailed for the

material indicated. This is a weakness in this program. The tasks directed by the

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

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

imposed. 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. In doing so, this

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

for the challenges of ENGL 1101.

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 LCC text is properly detailed and makes an

excellent teaching tool. The Reid text serves the purpose, but may or may not be the best

tool for the task.

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

Kueker, 2008, p. 16). The only way to learn to write is to write. The extensive writing

requirements of all courses presented to freshmen at SSU provide ample opportunity for

students to write, to learn, to review, to edit, and to write again. The essays presented in

the textbook for ENGL 1101 should, perhaps be presented to those students in ENGL

0095/0096, and the Longman Concise Companion may be a textbook well suited for

those students as well. In doing so, that program would provide a more rigorous


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

Students who participate fully in each level of the program would be hard-pressed not to

grow in writing ability through the process; this is particularly true of ENGL 1101 and

1102.

Recommendations

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

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

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

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

awareness of the program by moving them through it with less tedium. During the last

few weeks before the end of the term, the students would be drilled in the compressed

essay format rather than the encouraged review format currently encouraged.

The current exit exam for ENGL 0095 and ENGL 0096 could be presented as the

entrance exam for ENGL 1101, the foundation of the General Education Program. This

would allow students to train and prepare much as they would for any other standardized

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

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

could be implemented. The end of ENGL 0096 should prepare students for the

placement test for ENGL 1101.

Perhaps ENGL 1101 could have a lesser requirement for entrance. Even a point

or two less would allow more students into the ENGL 1101 course. The extra two hours

per week would allow for students who have an ACT English subscore of 17 to have the

supervision and structure they need to succeed at the college level. Students who achieve


a score equivalent to an ACT English subscore of 22 could place into ENGL 1102.

Those students who require the more basic writing instruction could still take the

remedial classes as needed.

Shawnee State University is nestled near the intersection of the Scioto and Ohio

Rivers in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. As such, the local student populace

may not have the foundation needed for placement into foundation level English, the

ENGL 1101 course level. Adult illiteracy is an issue which needs to be and is

consistently addressed in this community, and the efforts of students to seek greater

education is always to be applauded. Some students, however, are simply not ready for

college, eligible though they may be. While in some states, community colleges provide

venues for those students; our area does not have resources of that nature. Therefore, it

has become incumbent upon Shawnee State University to fill the gap. The outreach

program of the university provides a venue worthy of consideration for this effort.

Summary

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 lengthy and detailed. 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 appropriate. Taking an eight week program would allow students to get

the information they need, while not consuming as much time as the current format. 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.

There would be better preparation for the placement exams were the students writing

longer essays more routinely.

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

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

However, a revamping of the program could be beneficial. For those who place into

basic writing and/or mechanics, it is clear that emphasis needs to be on achieving the

specific goals set forth: preparing for the exit (entrance) exam and ENGL 1101. The

Longman Concise Companion can be used for those students, who can then keep that text

throughout their academic career and continue to use it. The text currently in use for

ENGL1101/1102 should be considered for reassignment to the course in ENGL 1105 --

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

Composition program. The goals outlined for ENGL 1101/1102 could be better met with

a different text.

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

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

populace. However, the composition sequence at Shawnee State, in its continuous effort

to meet the constantly changing needs of the ever-expanding student populace, may need

to consider making ENGL 1101/1102 a broader scope. This would allow for some

students who currently place into remedial coursework to place into ENGL 1101 instead.

Shawnee is a growing and forward thinking University that is somewhat mired in

its open enrollment program, and its history as a two-year college. However, there are


venues in place to support that program while reducing the drudgery of a three unit class

detailing subjects and verbs. The intent is to help the students succeed, but there has got

to be a better way.


References

Anson, C.M., Schwegler, R.A., & Muth, M.F. (2010). Longman concise companion. New

York: Longman. Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New

evidence on college remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-900.

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

moderating effects of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher

Education, 33(2). 177-205.

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

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

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

learning questionnaire for predicting academic performance in college students of

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

(Alabama) 1313-1316.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

289-299.

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

Leadership, 37(2), 30-33.


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

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

Shawnee State University, Portsmouth, Ohio.

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

Education, 144(WI), 3-13.

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

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

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

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

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

NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

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

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

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

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

April, 2005, 30-33.

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

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

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

among community college students needing remediation. Informally published

manuscript, Community College Research Center, Columbia University, New

York, NY.


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

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

Practice, 30, 771-786.

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

mechanics of English made by college freshmen. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 38(8), 499-503.

Newberry, P. & Kueker D. (2008). How do you recognize a rigorous and relevant

curriculum?: a method for analyzing rigor and relevance in science and

mathematics curricula. Published Whitepaper. Vivayic, Inc, Lincoln, NE.

Retrieved from http://vivayic.com/whitepapers/curricula_analysis.pdf.

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

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

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

of the K-16 Seamless Transition. Retrieved from

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

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

Week, 25(33), 27-27.

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

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

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

Pearson Prentice Hall.

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

Unpublished manuscript. Office of Admissions. Shawnee State University.


Portsmouth, OH. Retrieved from

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

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

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

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

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

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

Educational and Psychological Measurement. 42. 367-369.

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

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

OH.

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

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

Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from

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

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

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

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

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


Index to Tables

Table Description Page

1.1 Fall 2010 course seats.........................................................................................7

1.2 Spring 2010 course seats.....................................................................................7

4.1 English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University........................33

4.2 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within the state of Ohio........37

4.3 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within accreditation peers.....38


Index to Appendices

Title Description Page

A Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095........................................................................66

B Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096........................................................................72

C Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101........................................................................79

D Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102........................................................................84


Appendix A

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0095

Basic Writing 1: Mechanics

Last Updated August 2010

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

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

Required Text

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

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

615218-7

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

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

Emphasis on the use of standard English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

allowed to skip English 0095.

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

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


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

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

include a clearly expressed topic sentence;

be supported by relevant details;

be coherent and unified;

and contain a variety of sentence lengths and structures.

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

demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas;

address a limited, focused topic;

be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs;

target an appropriate audience;

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

mechanics;

and be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

Take the English 0095 Exit Exam.

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

English 0095 this semester.

Policies:

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

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

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

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

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

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

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

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


accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

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

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

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grading:

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

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

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

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

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

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

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

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

essays;

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

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


Pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.

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

scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory

Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

idea.

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

appropriate.

Lacks a thesis or

controlling idea.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in

paragraph construction.

Contains flawed


Expresses developed

ideas. All or most of the

paragraphs are long

enough to indicate that

the writer has considered

each subtopic.

Expresses some

developed ideas, but other

ideas may be

underdeveloped.

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons,

comma splices, non-

May have as many as 10

major sentence errors.

May have 11 or more



parallelism, mixed

constructions).

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and

pronoun shifts,

apostrophe errors,

misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional

uses of nonstandard

grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

process for students who fail the Exit Exam:

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

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

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

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

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

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

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

To allow the student to take a retest.

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

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


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

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

Humanities department.

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

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

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

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

Success Center.


Appendix B

***SYLLABUS TEMPLATE***

ENGL 0096

Last Updated July 2010

Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays

Term:

Section No. Days/Times Room Number/Bldg

Instructor:

Office Hours:

Office:

Office Phone: Department Office: 351-3300

Email:

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

Required Text.

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

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

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

revising paragraphs and short essays. Standard organizational patterns for paragraphs

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

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

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

strong correlation between writing ability and ACT English subscores. Most

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

Lack planning or revision;

Lack controlling ideas/theses;

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

Contain flawed paragraph construction;

Express ideas which are severely underdeveloped;


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

constructions);

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

tone/diction, slang, or inappropriate words);

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

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

misspellings).

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

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

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

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

this essay exam may be allowed to skip English 0096.

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

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

Practice composing paragraphs.

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

must:

Demonstrate that the student has collected and arranged writing ideas.

Address a limited, focused topic.

Be developed with appropriate, coherent, and unified paragraphs.

Target an appropriate audience.

Include sentences that are tied together cohesively.

Include various types of sentences.

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

mechanics.

Be at least 350 words long.

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

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

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

mechanics.

Take the English 0096 Exit Exam.


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

English 0096 this semester.

Policies.

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

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

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

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

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

provides reasonable academic adjustments or accommodations for students with

documented disabilities. (Reasonable accommodations are those which would not

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

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

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

accommodations must provide documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of

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

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

encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

instructor.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Grading.

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

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

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

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

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

an impact on your GPA.

Determining the Course Grade (P or NC):

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

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

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

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

Pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.

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

English 0096 will be scored.

The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory Essay

Shows evidence of

planning and/or revision.

Shows some evidence of

planning and revision.

Shows little or no

evidence of planning or

revision.

Contains an appropriate

thesis and/or controlling

idea.

Contains a thesis, but this

thesis may not be entirely

appropriate.

Lacks a thesis or

controlling idea.

Fulfills all aspects of the

assignment. Responds

adequately to the

assignment.

Indicates that the writer

understood the gist of the

assignment, but the writer

may have had some

difficulty fulfilling the

assignment.

May fail to fulfill the

assignment.

Contains adequately

constructed paragraphs.

Contains paragraphs with

topic sentences, but there

may be some flaws in

Contains flawed paragraph

construction.



Expresses developed

ideas. All or most of the

paragraphs are long

enough to indicate that the

writer has considered each

subtopic.

Expresses some developed

ideas, but other ideas may

be underdeveloped.

Expresses ideas which are

severely underdeveloped.

Such essays are often

characterized by short

paragraphs.

Has no more than three

major sentence errors

(fragments, run-ons,

comma splices, non-

parallelism, mixed

constructions).

May have as many as 10


May have 11 or more


Demonstrates a sense of

audience awareness by

generally using

appropriate tone and

diction.

Demonstrates a sense of

audience, but may

occasionally mix slang or

other inappropriate words

with academic tone and

diction.

Demonstrates no sense of

audience awareness.

Frequently uses slang or

other inappropriate words.

Contains almost no

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar

(subject/verb agreement

problems, tense and

pronoun shifts, apostrophe

errors, misspellings, etc.).

May contain occasional

uses of nonstandard

grammar.

May contain several

interfering uses of

nonstandard grammar.

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

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

during this week (rather than during final exam week) so that there will be time to have

each Exit Exam read by two or three members of the English faculty. Rather than


awarding traditional letter grades on the final exam, each reader will give the exam a 96

(indicating that the writing is still at the English 0096 level) or an 1101 (indicating that

the writing is acceptable for a student about to enter English 1101). Sometimes, a reader

may decide that a 96+ or 1101- is a more appropriate score than a simple 96 or 1101. A

96+ indicates that the writing would not be acceptable for an incoming English 1101

student, but it does show potential. An 1101- indicates that the writing is not entirely

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

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

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

1101 1101 NA 1101

1101 1101- NA 1101

1101- 1101- NA 1101

1101 1101- 96+ 1101

1101- 1101- 96+ 1101

1101 1101 96 1101

1101 1101- 96 1101

1101- 1101- 96 1101

1101 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96+ 96

1101- 96+ 96 96

1101 96 96 96

1101- 96 96 96

96+ 96+ NA 96

96+ 96 NA 96

96 96 NA 96

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

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

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

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

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


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

The student must then discuss the issue with the instructor, explaining why s/he feels the

Exit Exam does not reflect his/her writing ability.

After hearing the student’s plea and examining the content of the portfolio, the instructor

will decide whether or not to pursue the appeal on behalf of the student.

If the instructor agrees that an appeal should be made, then the instructor will contact the

Director of Composition, who will make one of the following decisions:

To allow the student to take a retest.

To submit the original exam to members of the English department for re-evaluation.

To allow the student to pass the course based on the strength of the student’s portfolio.

To deny the student’s request. In this case, the student may follow standard university

procedure on grade appeals and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and

Humanities department.

If the instructor disagrees with the student and does not choose to appeal on the behalf of

the student, then the student may follow standard university procedure on grade appeals

and take his or her appeal to the chair of the English and Humanities department.

Students are NOT to appeal an Exit result with the Placement Coordinator in the Student

Success Center.


Appendix C

***Syllabus Template***

English 1101

Discourse and Composition

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A7-A10 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A7-A10.

Catalog Description:

An introduction to college composition. Students practice responding appropriately to

different types of rhetorical situations, writing in various genres, and critiquing discourse.

Students will learn to research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.:

Appropriate developmental class or placement.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall

often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide

alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Credit Hours: 5

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either


English 1101 or 1102, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Goals and Objectives:

Note: These goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on the Council of Writing

Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition and on The

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1101 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge

Students who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

Recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,

Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.


Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.

Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes


Recognize that writing is a flexible and not necessarily linear process, but rather a

recursive one.

Understand that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising, and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions


Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

They should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that develop a coherent thesis with

unity, structure, and sufficient detail.

Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their six

formal essays should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-

appropriate diction, but also demonstrate a competence in the conventions and grammar

of the English language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1101 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the

Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:


Students in English 1101 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1101 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success

Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

Note to Instructors: The following core syllabus, with the exception of the required

textbooks list, is printed on pages A11-A14 of The Longman Concise Companion.

Some instructors reprint this information on their expanded syllabi, but most simply

refer students to pages A11-A14.


Appendix D

***Syllabus Template***

English 1102

Discourse and Composition

Course Syllabus

Catalog Description: An accelerated introduction to college composition. Students

practice responding appropriately to different types of rhetorical situations, writing in

various genres, and critiquing discourse. Students will be required to conduct scholarly

research and document their work in appropriate formats. Preq.: Placement.

Credit Hours: 3

This course counts toward a requirement of the General Education Program (GEP).

Students fulfill the English Composition component of the GEP by first completing either

English 1102 or 1101, and then by completing English 1105. In each of the composition

courses, students practice writing clearly and concisely in a variety of formats.

Required Textbooks:

Anson, Chris M., Robert A. Schwegler, and Marcia F. Muth. The Longman Concise

Companion. 2nd SSU ed. New York: Longman, 2010. Print. [ISBN 9780558310264]

Reid, Stephen. The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers ValPack. Brief 9th ed.

Boston: Prentice, 2011. Print. [ISBN 0205828205 Note: This is the ISBN for the

ValPack version of the textbook. The ValPack includes both The Prentice Hall Guide for

College Writers and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader. Both texts are required

for all students enrolled in either English 1101 or English 1102. Although Prentice Hall

often packages these two texts together for the same net price as The Prentice Hall Guide

alone, if you choose to purchase the books from a supplier other than the SSU Bookstore,

you may not be able to find the ValPack; thus, you may have to purchase the books

separately, and you will need the ISBNs for both texts in order to make sure you purchase

the correct editions. The ISBN for The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers alone is

0205752071. The ISBN for Purposes alone is 0132250691.]

Goals and Objectives:


Note: These goals and objectives for English 1102 are based on the Council of Writing

Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition and on The

University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition. Many of the statements

that follow are borrowed directly from those documents.

Students who complete English 1102 will develop their writing ability, learning to write

coherent, focused, purposeful prose using the structural and mechanical conventions

appropriate to a college classroom. Furthermore, students who complete this course will

develop their ability to read carefully and think critically. Throughout the semester,

students will demonstrate—through writing and speaking—that they have understood

both the content and structural principles at work in what they have read.

Rhetorical Knowledge


Recognize the elements that inform rhetorical situations. Students should be able to

distinguish among evaluative, personal, informational, and analytical essays as ways to

communicate. Furthermore, students should be able to produce expository texts that

Have a clear purpose,

Include explicit or implicit thesis claims,

Respond to the needs of a variety of audiences, and

Assume an appropriate stance.

Adopt an appropriate voice, tone, style, and level of formality for different rhetorical

situations.

Use conventions of format and structure appropriate for different rhetorical situations.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing

Students in this class will examine the cultural context of published writing. Students

who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

Use reading and writing for inquiry, learning, thinking, and communication.

Think critically of the ideas developed in published works, analyzing relationships among

writer, text, and audience in various kinds of texts.

Analyze the features and rhetorical devices that professional writers use to achieve their

purposes.

Access print and electronic library resources.


Evaluate library resources and Internet materials.

Write essays that integrate appropriate source material.

Knowledge of Composing Processes

Students who enter English 1102 typically understand that writing is a flexible and not

necessarily linear process, but rather a recursive one. Furthermore, they typically

recognize that most writers must compose multiple drafts to complete a successful text.

English 1102 will help these students better understand the various phases of the writing

process. Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to

Use various strategies to generate ideas and text.

Understand the differences between drafting, revising and editing.

Apply their understanding of drafting, revising, and editing processes to their own work,

thus producing successive drafts of increasing quality.

Collaboration


Participate in collaborative and social aspects of writing.

Work with others to improve their own and others’ texts. They will frequently be

required to thoughtfully complete activities such as peer review.

Balance the advantages of advantages of relying on others with taking responsibility for

their own work.

Knowledge of Conventions

Students who enter English 1102 should be able to write multi-paragraph essays that

develop a coherent thesis with clear structure and reasonable detail. They should also be

able to edit such essays, correcting flaws in syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.

In English 1102, students will further develop these drafting and editing skills as they

practice writing more sophisticated essays. Students who successfully complete English

1102 should be able to

Employ appropriate conventions for structure, paragraphing, mechanics, and format.

Refine their use of syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Their four formal essays

should not only be written in Standard American English, using college-appropriate

diction, but also demonstrate proficiency in the conventions and grammar of the English

language.


Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and

avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.

Composing in Electronic Environments


Use electronic environments for drafting, reviewing, revising, editing, and sharing texts.

Use a variety of technologies and digital media to address a range of audiences.

Grading:

The departmental grading standards for the formal essays you will produce in English

1102 and English 1105 are printed on pages A21-A27 of this handbook. Your instructor

will give you a handout that describes your writing assignments and indicates how much

weight will be given to each. At least 70% of your course grade will be determined by

the scores you receive on your essays.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is the act of presenting another’s words or ideas as your own writing without

acknowledging your debt to the original source. Plagiarism can include not only quoted

material that is not cited and credited but also summaries or paraphrases of material that

are not cited and credited. Plagiarism can also include submitting a paper that someone

else wrote or one that was substantially revised by someone else. Plagiarism can be

unintentional as well as intentional. To avoid plagiarism, submit your own work and be

sure to credit and cite sources properly. If you have any questions about proper

documentation, see your instructor.

Plagiarism constitutes academic misconduct according to university policy. Any

incidents of plagiarism, intentional or unintentional, may be reported to the Chair of the

Department of English and Humanities or other university officials. The chair, in

consultation with the faculty member, will then determine whether circumstances warrant

a formal charge of academic misconduct as set forth in the SSU Student Handbook. A

student who turns in plagiarized work will receive a failing grade for the assignment and

may face dismissal from the course. In such a case, the student will receive an F—not a

W—for the course.

Use of Student Work:


Students in English 1102 should expect to share their writing with their classmates on a

regular basis. Activities such as peer review and group work are central to a successful

writing class. Furthermore, the papers that you write for English 1102 may be retained by

the college for educational purposes. Any graded work that your instructor cannot return

by the end of the term will be retained by the Department of English and Humanities for

one semester only.

Disability Statement:

In accordance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990, Shawnee State University provides reasonable academic

adjustments or accommodations for students with documented disabilities. (Reasonable

accommodations are those which would not compromise the integrity of the academic

program.) Examples of documented disabilities include physical, psychiatric, and/or

learning impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities of the

student. Students seeking academic adjustments or accommodations must provide

documentation of the disability to the Coordinator of Disability Services, Student Success

Center, Massie Hall (740-351-3276), prior to receiving services. After meeting with the

Coordinator, students are encouraged to meet with their instructors to discuss their needs.

abstract - debdavis.pbworks.comdebdavis.pbworks.com/f/curriculum_analysis_of_freshm… · web...

Documents