Upload
phamkhanh
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 3:50:39 AM
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 3
Table of ContentsAbstract................................................................................................................................2
Introduction..........................................................................................................................4
Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University............................................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 college readiness and what causes it?........................................................................................................................11
What is being done to resolve these concerns?..............................................................16
How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to alleviating these concerns?........................................................................................................................21
Methodology and Design...................................................................................................25
Data Analysis & Interpretation..........................................................................................30
Contextual Information and Framework........................................................................30
Table 4.1.........................................................................................................................32
Goals, grading and exit requirements............................................................................33
Table 4.2.........................................................................................................................36
Table 4.3.........................................................................................................................37
Textbooks and any Specific Assignments.....................................................................38
Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy............................................................46
Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods....................................................................47
Other Program-Related Information..............................................................................48
Summary, Discussion, and Application.............................................................................49
References..........................................................................................................................53
Index to Tables..................................................................................................................57
Index to Appendices..........................................................................................................58
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 4
Introduction
Freshman English Composition at Shawnee State University
The need to provide an equitable foundation in English Writing skills nearly
equates to a freshman “rite of passage.” Virtually all college students have composed the
foundational essays that form the basis of writing requirements that will be elaborated
upon within the varying disciplines. Shawnee State University is no different in that
regard. In most University programs, including Shawnee State, there are courses
provided for those who do not meet the requirements anticipated at the freshman writing
level. At this University, the courses are indicated in the course catalog as:
ENGL 0095 – Basic Writing 1: Mechanics
o A student who earns an English subscore of 10 or lower is placed in
English 0095 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards
graduation).
ENGL 0096 – Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays
o A student who earns an English subscore of 11-18 is placed in English
0096 (a developmental writing course that does not count towards
graduation requirements).
ENGL 0097 – Reading Development 1
ENGL 0098 – Reading Development 2
While the Reading Development courses are important and pertinent to many
issues, they are not directly related to the writing requirements and will not be
addressed within this project.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 5
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, Discourse and
Composition -- the freshman English writing course. Through this analysis, it is hoped
that there will be clarification of the sequence of writing coursework objectives from
developmental through the composition sequence. Beyond that, this analysis will provide
a rationale for the necessity of the currently tiered program or identify alternatives as may
be suggested by other state and university systems.
Overview
Shawnee State appears to be on par with many American universities in providing
a combination of developmental English programs and freshman composition programs.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 6
A recent study shows “nearly 30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those
who attend community college are forced to take noncredit remedial courses because,
despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic skills in reading and math” (Carey,
2010, p. 2).
An analysis of English composition seats at Shawnee State University indicates a
similar pattern. For this analysis, the enrollment period for the 2010-2011academic year
is considered. Table 1.1 outlines the available seating for developmental courses and the
beginning of the composition sequence for the Fall, 2010 semester. Below it, table 1.2
outlines the available seating for both developmental and standard composition
coursework for the Spring, 2011 term.
In the Fall, of the nearly 900 seats available for standard 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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 7
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 8
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 1101/1102 –
Discourse and Composition?
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 9
Literature Review
One of the biggest issues of concern with regard to any curriculum is the
functionality of the curriculum for readying students to move forward with their
education. The need for remediation coursework in colleges and universities is well
documented nationwide (Carey 2010, and Attewell, Lavin, Domina & Levey 2006, and
Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz, 2007). A trend toward a lack of college readiness has
predicated the need for developmental or gatekeeping courses. If students were better
prepared upon arrival at institutions of higher learning, the entire developmental program
would be rendered moot. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Therefore, in order to
understand the issue of coursework that is less than college freshman level composition
sequence requirements, it is important to gain a framework of the entire question of
remediation. To do this, it is important to look at several questions.
Why are freshman-level writing courses critical to student success in
college?
What is construed as readiness and why is it critical that college freshman
have adequate readiness for entry to the composition sequence?
What seems to be the cause(s) of the gap between high school
achievement and college readiness?
What is being done to resolve these concerns?
How does an analysis of developmental course curricula contribute to
alleviating these concerns?
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 10
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, Bissell, Hafner & Katz (2007) suggest the need to develop “habits of
mind”—engaging the students in problem-solving, analytical research, and supported
interpretations and critical reasoning—thus helping students succeed in advanced level
work (p. 31).
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 11
How large is the gap between high school achievement and college readiness and
what causes it?
Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz explain that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at
the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college
academically under prepared [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,
according to Jacobson (p. 138).
Carey (2010) indicates, “30 percent of four-year students and 60 percent of those
who attend Community College” (p. A30) are placed in remedial coursework because of
a lack of basic English and math skills. Brock (2010) explains that the open admissions
policy of the 1960s and 1970s led to a policy to “allow all high school graduates to
pursue college degrees regardless of academic preparation” (p. 112). He notes that
assigning students to remedial coursework “clearly divides them from students
considered to be ‘college ready’” (p. 116).
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 12
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.
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 13
guidance is supported by the current work of George (2010), who puts the remedial
program in the position of “gatekeeper, entrusted with students whose academic and
social advancement has been put in jeopardy because they failed a test” (p. 83).
In an article entitled “Closing the College Readiness Gap,” Cline, Bissell, Hafner,
and Katz (2007) questioned whether the problem of college readiness goes beyond just
fulfilling eligibility requirements The realization that “meeting basic eligibility
requirements for college may not equate to being prepared for college-level work” is the
focus of their report (p. 30). This study also reminds us that “the dropout rate at the
university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically
underprepared” (p. 30). They further note that “the need for remediation at the post-
secondary level, even for those students who enter as fully qualified, has become
increasingly worrisome” (p. 31).
Jacobsen (2006) discusses the dichotomy of higher standards and greater
problems, noting that while most students will perform at a higher standard if required,
those who are unprepared academically may end up falling to the wayside in an
increasing gap. Perkins-Gough (2008) expressed concerns about students who are not
prepared, presenting the same conclusions as Brock (2010) and Jacobsen (2006), a loss of
the unprepared. Callahan & Chumney (2009), like Olson and Gerwertz (2006, 2010),
discussed positioning remedial students for success and suggest that a more stringent
method of preparation will set them in a better position for achievement.
George (2010) focuses on remedial mathematics education, but his points are well
made with respect to remedial English education as well. His focus is largely on
motivation, ethics, social context, and “choices that extend beyond the domain (p. 82)”
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 14
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 15
must do to be fully ready to succeed in college” (p. 3). He expresses concern that these
current measures are merely the conventional standard of courses taken and grades
received. This is indicated as short-sighted and a far more complex model is presented.
In his model, the “college-ready student is able to understand what is expected in a
college course, can cope with the content knowledge that is presented, and can develop
the key intellectual lessons and dispositions the course is designed to convey” (p. 4).
“Exactly what constitutes ‘college-level work’ is by no means clear” (Attewell et
al., 2006, p. 887). Still, best defined by Conley (2008), readiness is “the degree to which
previous educational and personal experiences have equipped [students] for the
expectations and demands they will encounter in college” (p. 7). Conley suggested that
the concept is based on “four facets: key cognitive strategies, key content knowledge,
academic behaviors, and contextual skills and knowledge” (p. 3).
Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz (2007) allow that the focus should be on “preparing
students to succeed in college-level work rather than on fulfilling basic eligibility
requirements that are primarily course- and grade-based.” Cline, et al. construe the
problem in terms of the “50 percent of entering freshmen system wide [who] need
remediation in English or mathematics.” 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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 16
The desire to close the gap, as expressed by Cline, et al., is echoed extensively by
Katsinas and Bush (2006). They define readiness as “a seamless system that improves
articulation and degree completion, and that promotes a positive trajectory from our
nation’s secondary schools into higher education” (p. 772).
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 17
want to be college ready need to be set a standard of readiness, not just eligibility. The
skills to “read eight to ten books in the same time that a high school class requires only
one or two” is a critical element. Another is to “write multiple papers in rapid succession
. . . well reasoned, well organized, and well supported . . . .” He contrasts this with high
school where “students may write one or two research papers at most throughout all of
high school and may take weeks or months to do so” (p. 5). Many who are eligible are
unready.
Gewertz (2010), suggests the construct of common standards for college
preparatory classes, which is pertinent because they lay out a set of readiness skills that
students could be expected to master by high school graduation (p. 1). These skills cover
every area of academia, and in the English section, contain hundreds of pages of
appendices of “at least adequate” performance at varying grade levels (p. 2).
Cline, Bissell, Hafner, & Katz (2007) describe a program, incorporated in high
schools in California that encompasses curriculum options, professional development for
educators, and assessment methods (p. 31). “Students are encouraged to think
rhetorically,” and they develop an ability to respond appropriately (p. 31). Assessments
improved markedly under the new curriculum as administered by the newly trained
educators. Consequently, students were better prepared for college, and more successful,
requiring little to no remediation (p. 32). Students in the study showed “a significant
increase on the statewide test in English language arts. The gains among these students
[using the new curriculum and newly trained educators] were almost four times as large
as the statewide gain and more than twice as large as found in control schools” (p. 32).
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 18
The resulting impact on college readiness was an elimination of remedial programming at
the University level, and a reduction of classes at the community college level.
According to Katsinas and Bush (2007), “about 2/3 of high school graduates go
on to college” (p. 780). In the article the authors address the matter that “the assessment
mechanism drives system performance” (p. 781). The intense problem, also presented, is
“the internal pressure” and focus on “micro-outcomes such as standardized, in-classroom
test scores” (p. 781). The authors recommend an emphasis on “larger macro level
indicators associated with . . . positive outcomes of high school” (p. 781). Meeting these
macro-level indicators would be better associated with students developing the types of
positive outcomes needed for college readiness.
Carey (2010) suggests that “states should be required to offer remedial placement
exams to all high-school students, without charge, at the end of the 11th grade” (p. A30).
This would fit well with Gewertz’s (2010) recommendation of a construct of common
standards for college preparatory classes so that completing high school English
programs would clearly prepare students to move forward into college English (p. 14).
Olson (2010) and Carey (2010) describe a program in California in which those who need
the help, as evaluated at the end of eleventh grade, can get it in grade 12, using a program
“developed jointly by high school teachers and CSU faculty members” (p. 27 & A31).
Brock (2010), however, believes that the solution is at the college level. He
presents an idea to “remake remedial education so that greater numbers of students
acquire basic skills and go on to earn college degrees” (p. 116). Attewell, et al. (2006)
points out that there is a positive influence in that “those students who do complete some
remedial coursework may have superior prospects of graduating” (p. 892). Callahan &
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 19
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 20
by policy” where the institution has some governing directive involving course grading,
credit, or exit policies.
Carey (2010) provides data on how many students are assigned to remedial
coursework upon college entry. He indicates that “nearly 30 percent of four-year
students and 60 percent of those who attend community college are forced to take
noncredit remedial courses because, despite their high-school diplomas, they lack basic
skills in reading and math” (p. A30). He notes that students are shocked to find
themselves in remedial coursework and explains that remedial placement is “highly
associated with an increased risk of dropping out [of college]” (p. A31). Olson (2006)
suggests ways to preclude remediation by better preparation. Like Carey (2010), Olson
recognizes the value of early placement testing to determine needs for remediation from
within the high school years. Were this program implemented nationwide, the entire
question of remediation at the college level would become moot.
In an early assessment of the role of college remediation vs. expanded high school
coursework, McGann (1947) suggested that students unready for a collegiate experience
need further tutelage and perhaps maturity to be successful in college. Her work was
groundbreaking in that it fell on the cusp of the vastly expanded Government Issue
Educational Benefits Bill (GI-Bill). The GI-Bill opened the doors of the Universities
nationwide to veterans who may never have anticipated college, and also those who had
been out of school for years. Her instruction methods detailed the efficacy of a remedial
program, applied to adult students (even younger adults) and the greater success that
followed (p. 501). Suddick (1982) found value in the use of college assessment tests,
including the American College Testing Program (ACT), Scholastic Aptitude Test
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 21
(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)
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 22
2005 analysis of a need for K-16 performance, and subsequent work with the Ohio
Department of Education (ODE) on such a program. Evaluating the curriculum presents
opportunity to guide the curriculum at Shawnee State to help support the K-16 alignment
presented by the ODE.
These articles may have different foci, but the emphasis is the same. There is a
difference between “eligible” for college and “ready” for college. When President
George W. Bush said “We expect every child to learn” (Katsinas and Bush, 2006, p.
784), no one could disagree with that statement, but no one wanted classrooms mired in
testing requirements and paperwork. While Katsinas and Bush (2006) were directing their
work to the advances made and not made in the minority education community, their
points about the distribution of students leaving high school stand equally valid among all
– work, college, military, incarceration, or unemployment are the options (p. 772).
Conley’s recommendation that “high schools and colleges can use the same language to
communicate what it takes” (p. 12) is well taken. As Conley states, “Making certain that
they are not just eligible but prepared will help students achieve their goals and help
colleges function more effectively” (p. 12).
Cline, Bissell, Hafner & Katz’s (2007) presentation, that schools should “work
together to ensure equitable opportunities for all students (p. 33),” would allow for
students to be well prepared for college. The whole focus of this article is on the
California State University (CSU) system effort to “increase the college and career
readiness rates of highs school students” (p. 31). Together, CSU representatives worked
with the California Department of Education and the State Board of Education to
determine the level of readiness among students ending tenth and eleventh grade. Then, a
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 23
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 24
improvement in grades and course completion over those who were simply required to
take the remedial programs after two (p. 118). However, completion rates at the four-
year level showed a marked (12%) difference in those same students. Olson (2010)
quotes Keith O. Boyum, CSU’s associate vice chancellor for academic affairs saying,
“students who arrive prepared and experience early success are more likely to follow
through to graduation, to succeed, and all that good stuff” (p. 27).
Still, concerns exist due to the convolutions of individuality. As presented by
Horn & Campbell. (2009), “Some research suggests the number of developmental classes
a student is required to take negatively relates with the likelihood of completion” (p.
514). Bahr (2010) tells us, however, that “Remedial English students who attain college-
level English competency . . . are comparable to students who achieve college-level
English skill without remediation” (p. 190). Unfortunately, Attewell (2006) reminds us
that “there is no objective or generally agreed upon cut-off below which college students
require remediation. Each college follows its own set of practices, and this leads to
considerable variability” (p. 887).
All of these issues coalesce to provide background to the questions presented
herein regarding our curricula at Shawnee State. Is what are we doing for our freshman
writers providing the solid, contiguous foundation needed for advanced academic
prowess? Since the research suggests that students entering college are not ready for
college, and there are ways to make the effort more fluid between the high school and
college achievements. It is important to consider whether the curriculum we provide
supports those students or if that coursework need to be realigned.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 25
Methodology and Design
This paper is designed to analyze the curriculum prescribed for entry level
students at Shawnee State University to present and evaluate options as to whether the
curriculum aids students in the foundational English skills needed to succeed throughout
the college careers. The texts directed for use, the hierarchy which oversees the selection
of texts, and sample curriculum provided will all be analyzed.
A curriculum analysis is not the same kind of research as a qualitative analysis of
specific questions and numeric answers. A “White Paper” by Vivayic (2008) asks,
“How do you Recognize a Rigorous and Relevant Curriculum?” While that document is
designed for work in science and mathematics curricula, many of the methods apply to all
curricula. Foremost is the opening comment. “Selecting and implementing rigorous and
relevant curricula is paramount to success in today’s education climate” (p. 1).
Implementation of this type of research requires a rigorous review of developed
course content and materials provided to the faculty and the indicated or guided
presentation of same to students. Evaluation of assessment methods should lead to
suggestions for alternative options if appropriate. Important questions that will guide this
review are:
Do described curricula for ENGL 0095 (Basic Writing 1: Mechanics) and
0096 (Basic Writing 2: Paragraphs and Essays) provide the appropriate
practice and emphasis indicated in the Shawnee State University catalog such
that students enter ENGL 1101 or 1102 fully prepared to be successful in one
of these two courses?
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 26
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 syllabus templates 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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 27
choose, the COMPASS test is offered for free at the school testing center, and is therefore
limited in opportunities.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 indicates 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 and will be adapted to provide
this analysis. This process will be repeated for each of the courses evaluated. While
ENGL 0095 and 0096 are handled separately, ENGL 1101 and 1102 are parallel
structures and will be handled collectively. The difference between them is the number
of in-class hours. For ENGL 1101, those students with ACT English subscore of 19 but
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 28
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.
Those two hours are largely spent in guided practice, with a slight elaboration of content
materials and assignments.
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 section for comparison to determine overlap,
appropriateness, review, and/or redundancy.
Following the recommendation 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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 29
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. The Vivayic Whitepaper on Curriculum Analysis (2008)
will be addressed in Chapter 5—Summary, Discussion, and Application. These
elements specifically lean toward “learned curriculum.” It is important to note that the
Vivayic elements are geared toward both rigor and relevance while the WVDE CAR is
focused more strictly on relevance.
Vivayic is a company focused on the belief that “learning - when well designed -
is key to achieving an organization’s objectives. Human capital is maximized.
Onboarding (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. This particular White Paper was
composed by an Albert einstien Felle who received the Presidential Award for Excellence
in Teaching, and someone who has led and participated in more than 25 national
curriculum design, development, implementation and evaluation projects.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 30
Data Analysis & Interpretation
Contextual Information and Framework
The WVDE CAR indicates that this element is to “provide the context of the
program . . . 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 paper, 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).
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 31
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).
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 32
Depending on a student’s aptitudes, base knowledge, and skills, there are courses
which are advised, and those which may be required. These courses fall within the
framework of “Developmental Education.” “Developmental courses provide
underprepared students an opportunity to gain the skills and knowledge necessary to
attempt college-level coursework.” An important note to this entire issue is that “Credit
hours earned in developmental courses, excluding UNIV 1101, cannot apply toward
degree requirements” (SSU, 2007, p. 26).
Table 4.1 below is extracted from within the Office of Admissions Placement
directive regarding placement.
Table 4.1
English Placement Assignments for Shawnee State University
English ACTsub 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 009510 or
lowerENGL 0095
Note: This information is extracted from the 2007 catalog.
4.1
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 33
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 34
“P” in this course, the student must earn a score of Satisfactory or Exceptional on at least
three of the required essays; earn an average of at least 70% on in-class and out-of-class
exercises; and pass the English 0096 Exit Exam.
A specific rubric for grading of essays and other written content is provided
within the syllabus. The student exit exams are given a grade of 95, 96, or 1101,
depending on the class the grading professor believes that essay best represents
preparedness. A “95” indicates the student would need to retake ENGL 0095; a “96,
would indicate the student may progress to ENGL 0096 (if currently enrolled in ENGL
0095), or would need to retake ENGL 0096; and a “1101” would indicate the student’s
readiness to move to ENGL 1101. Note that an “1101-” is a potential grade to indicate
that a student may require additional work to be successful at the ENGL 1101 level.
As previously indicated, the “goals and objectives for English 1101 are based on
the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ Outcomes Statement for First-Year
composition and on the University System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition”
(CDE, 2010, p. 30). The same is true of ENGL 1102, which is, however, an “accelerated
introduction to college composition” (p. 33).
Grading for ENGL 1101 and 1102 is published in the textbook and available as a
handout for students and faculty. The syllabus template, however, does specify that at
least 70% of the course grade is to be determined by essay scores (CDE, p. 32). It is
further noted in the syllabus template that either ENGL1101 or 1102 will complete the
first portion of the English Composition component of the General Education Program
(GEP) and prepare the students for ENGL 1105. At Shawnee State, as at most University
systems, there is a foundation element of courses collectively referred to as the General
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 35
Education Program (GEP). “This group of courses gives students the opportunity to
acquire the characteristics of an educated person” (SSU, p. 55). Within the element of
English Composition, the “two English composition courses must be completed prior to
taking coursework at the Integrative Level of the GEP” (p. 56).
Table 4.1 indicates the requirements at a spectrum of Universities throughout
Ohio. These University course requirements were pulled to evaluate the comparative
nature of the placement into a Freshman English Composition program as indicated by
each University to be part of that schools General Education Program (GEP). All of the
Universities have a Freshman Composition course of some form required as part of their
GEP or Core curriculum process. The placement for these courses was some form of
testing, and the score requirements were highly comparable. All were between 17 and 20
ACT English subscore levels. Some schools have an extended program with greater
interaction between professor and student, much like SSU’s ENGL 1101 program.
Students with higher scores would be able to take a less intensive program meeting the
same requirements, much like SSU’s ENGL 1102. In all cases, the program below the
freshman level, while meeting credit hours for determination of full-time students, did not
fulfill graduation requirements.
Table 4-2 provides the same basic information as Table 4-1. However, Table 4-2
presents this information against the balance of the accreditation peer group. Shawnee
State University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) within the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA). The peers indicated in Table
4-2 are those which these accreditation association measure and balance Shawnee State
(SSU, 2009).
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 36
Table 4.2
4.1
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 37
Table 4.3
4.3
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 38
Textbooks and any Specific Assignments
“All writing instructors are required to regularly assign readings from the selected
textbooks” (CDE, 2010, p. 6). This document briefly addresses the search process for
textbooks, and goes in length to ensure understanding of the necessity for the prescribed
text. Students are to be cautioned regarding the purchase of prior editions. All textbooks
for the composition program are, however, on reserve at the library on campus and may
be accessed there during open library hours. Each syllabus details any textbooks
required to include the ISBN for those textbooks.
The textbook required for ENGL 0095 is The Writer’s World: Paragraphs and
Essays (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009). This text is also available with access to
www.mywritinglab.com, an online support service with additional exercises, but that is
not the copy procured for this program.
Per the guidelines for this course, students’ primary task is to “practice with the
basics of written expression: grammar, punctuation, usage, spelling, and sentence
structure. A review of the fundamentals of standard American English should be
demonstrated and actively pursued within the framework of the course. The exit exam
will be a culminating event for these students (CDE, 2010, p. 18).
The textbook itself is composed in parts, sections, and chapters. The first part is
about “The Writing Process” and provides an overview in three chapters which are not
broken into sections (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009, p. iii). The second part deals with
“Paragraph Patterns” and has nine chapters. The third part, “The Essay” has three
chapters. The fourth part, “The Editing Handbook” has nine sections. Each section has
its own theme, and multiple chapters. Within the section themes are specific elements of
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 39
composition. An example of this is section three which has a theme of espionage and a
focus on problems with verbs. The chapters deal with such issues of tense issues,
participles, and verb forms that are non-standard or progressive.
Within the elements addressed are a series of practice exercises of the “circle the
right answer” variety. These exercises provide the verb tense choices, among which the
student is to select the appropriate tense form. Additional practice exercises provide
opportunities for students to correct errors and select from verb choices or fill-in-the-
blank with the appropriate form of “to be.” The chapter concludes with a segment called
“Reflect on it” that provides a review worksheet for the student.
The format is detailed and specific. It would appear to be tedious to spend three
hours a week pursuing this knowledge at this pace for sixteen weeks. Perhaps more
importantly, the structure does not truly lend itself to specifically preparing the students
for the exit exam or ENGL 0096 where they are expected to write full paragraphs and
essays.
Throughout the writing assignments given, students are strongly encouraged to
remember that writing is a circular process, and they are to review and edit their work for
rewriting repeatedly. While this is good practice in general writing methods, in the exit
exam situation, the students are given a prompt with no preparation or guidance, and in a
two hour period they are expected to provide a cohesive and complete essay. Nowhere in
the syllabus are the students challenged to meet this requirement before the exit exam,
though they do take the Compass placement exam part way through the program. The
essays to be completed during the class are only 350 words long. Instead, the focus is on
the specific use of specific parts of grammar.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 40
The textbook required for ENGL 0096 is The Writer’s World: Essays (Gaetz &
Phadke, 2009). An Instructor’s Resource Manual (Nichols & McCartney-Christensen,
2009) is also provided to the faculty. This text is also available with access to
www.mywritinglab.com, an online support service with additional exercises.
Per the guidelines for this course, students’ primary task is to practice composing
paragraphs, and compose and revise a minimum of five essays. A review of the
fundamentals of standard American English should be demonstrated and actively pursued
within the framework of the course. The exit exam will be a culminating event for these
students (CDE, 2010, p. 21).
The Instructor’s Resource Manual provides suggested syllabi for varying lengths
of terms. At SSU, the semester is a sixteen week term, and there is a syllabus for sixteen
weeks (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009, p. 7). The Resource Manual also provides a summary and
a multiple choice quiz for each chapter.
The textbook itself is composed in parts, sections, and chapters. The first part is
about “The Writing Process” and provides an overview in five chapters which are not
broken into sections (Gaetz & Phadke, 2009, p. iii). The second part deals with “Essay
Patterns” and has nine chapters. The third part, “More College and Workplace Writing”
has five chapters. The fourth part, “The Editing Handbook” has six sections. Each
section has its own theme, and multiple chapters. Within the section themes are specific
elements of composition. An example of this is section three which has a theme of
international trade and a focus on verbs. The chapters deal with such issues of subject-
verb agreement, tenses, and problem verbs.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 41
Within the elements addressed are a series of practice exercises of the “fill-in-the-
blank” variety. These exercises provide the root verb, to which the student is to apply the
appropriate tense form. Additional practice exercises provide opportunities for students
to correct errors and select from verb choices. The chapter concludes with a segment
called “The Writer’s Room: Topics for Writing” that provides a couple of prompts for
writing assignments.
The format is straightforward and direct, perhaps even pedantic. It would appear
to be tedious to spend three hours a week pursuing this knowledge at this pace for sixteen
weeks. Perhaps more importantly, the structure does not truly lend itself to specifically
preparing the students for the exit exam or ENGL 1101.
Throughout the writing assignments given, students are strongly encouraged to
remember that writing is a circular process, and they are to review and edit their work for
rewriting repeatedly. While this is good practice in general writing methods, in the exit
exam situation, the students are given a prompt with no preparation or guidance, and in a
two hour period they are expected to provide a cohesive and complete essay. Nowhere in
the syllabus are the students challenged to meet this requirement before the exit exam.
The five essays to be completed during the class are only 350 words long. Instead, the
focus is on the composition of paragraphs.
The textbooks required for ENGL 1101 or 1102 are identical. The Longman
Concise Companion: Shawnee State 2nd Edition (Anson, Schwegler, and Muth, 2010) is
the handbook required for either of these courses and also the follow-on course, ENGL
1105. Both these courses also use Reid (2011), The Prentice Hall Guide for College
Writers ValPack. The ValPack contains both The Prentice Hall Guide for College
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 42
Writers, and Purposes: A Prentice Hall Pocket Reader (CDE, pp. 22 &33). With these
texts can be purchased access to www.mycomplab.com. This is a resource to provide
exercises, tutorials, and online assignment management tools. It is not included in the
ValPack procured for this course.
As noted in above, ENGL 1101 and 1102 are both programmed to provide a
necessary introduction to college composition. The difference is in pace and expected
performance. The ENGL 1101 course is a five unit course, whereas the ENGL 1102
course is a three unit course which requires ACT subscore of 24 to enter. To enter ENGL
1101, the student must have successfully passed ENGL 0096 or have an ACT subscore of
at least 11.
There are other differences and similarities in the requirements of the two courses.
For example, the library tutorial program is not required of students in ENGL 1102, but
an online tutorial may be assigned. While both will use the rubric for grading standards
(pages A21-A28 of The Longman Concise Companion), students in ENGL 1101 will
provide at least six formal papers of at least 750 words. Students in ENGL 1102 will
provide at least four formal papers of approximately 1250 words. However, two of the
formal papers provided by students in both classes will be composed using academic
research and citation methods. Also, students in both classes must provide a minimum of
6000 words of information responses, journals, etc.
The professor in ENGL 1101/1102 has the discretion to administer the
requirements of the program, using the tools provided. Each professor has her own
method of implementing the tools, but there is a sample syllabus provided as a
recommended method. It is this method that will be analyzed here.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 43
The Longman Concise Companion (LCC) (2010) is a standard rhetoric and
handbook for collegiate level composition issues. The first four parts are general writing
guidelines. Each part is broken into chapters, which are broken into sections and
subsections. Each chapter has a variety of exercises for students to practice the skills
elements provided in that chapter.
The center part, part five, is about “Documenting Sources” and provides five
chapters. The first of these five chapters is chapter twenty-four, “Five Serious
Documentation Problems.” This chapter is an excellent and thorough presentation of
errors and their solutions. The other four chapters specifically indicate guidelines for
varying documentation styles, and include an example paper for both the Modern
Language Association (MLA) style and the American Psychological Association (APA)
style formats. The other styles are the Chicago (CMS) and Scientific (CSE) styles. The
edges of the pages for part five are colorful to provide ready access and reference to
them.
The latter half of the book, parts six through ten, details grammar components.
Starting with a chapter on “Ten Serious Errors,” the book progresses through editing
methods, sentence problems, word choice, punctuation, and closes with a part for
proofreading. This book provides detailed reference and methods of instruction for the
faculty who use it as a teaching tool.
In the sample syllabus, LCC is presented for selected chapters as homework. The
sample syllabus has a “Grammar Review Topic” for each week, and the assignments
from LCC reflect those topics. In doing so, the syllabus requires the students to move
through the text, and become very familiar with it. This provides an advantage to the
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 44
students who do these homework assignments as this resource is a benefit in this class as
well as future writing courses.
The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers (PHG) (Reid, 2011) is the anthology
textbook provided for the course, and is accompanied by a Pocket Reader entitled
Purposes (Reid, 2007). The text, PHG, proceeds in chapters and while each chapter is
broken into elemental sections, they are not numbered, merely named. Most of the
chapters address the writing process with a section of varied “Techniques” that are
analyzed and presented. That section is followed by “Warming Up: Journal Exercises”
and then the elements of “Choosing a Subject,” “Collecting,” “Shaping,” “Drafting,” and
“Revising.” A “Peer Response” element follows, encouraging the students to learn
collaboratively and grow as a group. The chapter closes with a “Postscript on the Writing
Process” giving a couple of example essays for students to read and evaluate.
Throughout PHG essays are provided using the techniques represented.
Additionally, the chapters frequently model the drafting and revision process showing
original writings, marks and comments, and finished work. Chapters also provide
vocabulary sections, and “Questions for Writing and Discussion.”
Within Chapter thirteen, “Researching,” specific information using MLA and
APA citation styles are presented as is an MLA sample document. The appendix
presents an essay on “Writing Under Pressure” (Reid, 2011, A1-A3). This document is
exceedingly valuable to students and could well be presented in the SSU ENGL 0095 and
0096 courses.
The Purposes text gives a variety of essays which are labeled by paragraph. This
provides easy reference for in-class or on-line discussion. The text itself does not line up
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 45
cohesively with the PHG text, but can certainly be aligned to work together. The essays
selected for Purposes are eclectic and dynamic. Students find them to be opinionated,
making them good choices for argumentative papers. However, the ENGL 1101 and
1102 courses are not intended to be argumentative in nature. Perhaps, therefore, that text
would be better suited to the ENGL 1105 course where argumentation is presented and
elucidated.
Throughout the semester, students provide a number of formally cited research
papers. The greater number of slightly shorter papers in ENGL 1101 gives the students
opportunity to embrace feedback and show growth. Both courses require two extensively
researched and documented papers, generally required at mid-term and end-term. In
preparation, students are encouraged to incorporate the method of writing as a circular
process, reviewing their own work and each others’.
The materials provided are appropriate and collegiate in nature. While some
elements may seem to be better suited for ENGL 0096 or ENGL 1105, they can certainly
be used for the requirements of ENGL 1101 and 1102. To some extent, the coursework
presented in the syllabus would be overwhelming to the freshman college student.
Between extensive reading assignments, weekly essays, discussion board elements, and
the big research papers, students in these courses consistently challenged to meet the
requirements.
However, the structure of the courses – with ENGL 1101 providing five hours of
class time per week gives the students plenty of guidance. One weak spot is noted.
While effort is made to place composition courses into computer enabled classrooms,
SSU currently has too few labs to do so. Teaching this five-hour course without
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 46
extensive in-class writing time does a distinct disservice to the students who take it. They
cannot get the kind of feedback and structure for which they were placed into ENGL
1101. Students placed into ENGL 1101 are those who achieved a 19-23 on the ACT or
equivalent percentile on the SAT or COMPASS test. Alternatively, they are those who
successfully completed ENGL 0096 with an exit exam score of 1101. These students
have good basic skills, but still need consistent structure and feedback which they can
only receive properly in a computer laboratory classroom.
Guidelines from the Institution or its Hierarchy
“Shawnee state is committed to providing education that fosters competence in
oral and written communication” (SSU, 2007, p. 7). As a part of the mission statement of
this University, this dedication is reflected throughout the documents provided or
available to all students. Faculty is encouraged to pursue individual advancement in
education to strengthen the program collectively. “Faculty are evaluated first and
foremost on excellence in teaching and second on scholarship and/or service to the
University and the community.” The English composition program is an integrated part
of the University plan to “improve student proficiency levels in basic knowledge and
skills.”
Shawnee State University falls under the guidance of the Ohio Board of Regents.
That governing body “has developed a statewide policy to facilitate movement of
students and transfer credits from one Ohio public college or university to another” (SSU,
p. 16). The English Composition program has been designed to meet or exceed the
standards of any Ohio public college or university to facilitate this transfer module. To
that end, the goals and objectives “are based on the Council of Writing Program
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 47
Administrators’ Outcomes statement for First-Year Composition and on The University
System of Ohio Outcomes for English Composition” (CDE, 2010, p. 30 & 34).
Faculty Leeway and Assessment Methods
As per the guidelines published by the Department, faculty members have some
flexibility in teaching styles and classroom protocols. While the specifics of enumerated
essays, word/page counts, research, and publication styles are not debatable, the actual
methods of pursuing those achievements are within the purview of the various
instructors. One example of this flexibility is in attendance. While the “attendance
policy must not contradict the SSU Excused Absence Policy . . . each faculty member
evaluates the importance of student class attendance based upon the specific nature of the
course in question” (CDE, 2010, p. 11-12). There may be times when some students will
be sent to procure materials from the library. In fact, during the ENGL 1101 term, the
instructors are strongly encouraged to coordinate with the library staff for two sessions:
an in-class session on using the library research tools; and a tour of the library facility.
The ENGL 1102 program, while not allowing in-class time for these programs,
encourages the use of the on-line tutorial provided by our library staff to enhance
research functionality. Some faculty find it valuable to use class periods to schedule
specific conference time with students, and will direct non-conferencing students to other
activities.
In each syllabus is an explanation and caution regarding plagiarism. Further, the
syllabus information specifically sets forth a method of handling plagiarism issues. The
decision of the degree of penalty (a grade of “F” on the paper, “F” in the course, or a
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 48
“formal charged of academic misconduct”) is the decision of the Chair of the Department
of English and Humanities (CDE, 2010, p. 32).
Each syllabus also contains a statement relating to the recognition of the
American Disabilities Act (ADA) and the method for handing needed services. At SSU,
every student is given every opportunity to excel. To that end, the Disability Services
center provides the necessary documentation and edification for students and faculty. It
is specifically and appropriately noted in this section that documenting needs and
presenting that information to faculty is a student responsibility.
Other Program-Related Information
Shawnee State University provides an excellent and extensive set of tutoring
options for students. Three specific facilities provide and computer resources to students.
These are the Student Success Center, the Student Success Services (TRIO) Center, and
the Reading and Writing Center. All tutoring is at no cost to the students. Some of these
services are scheduled, and others are drop-in services. There are computer labs
available for students in several buildings on campus, and these are generally staffed by
paid personnel who can assist with computer-related issues. The English and Humanities
“Department purchases an institutional subscription to NoodleTools® each year” (CDE,
2010, p. 14). These resources allow for Shawnee students to have every opportunity to
grow, learn, and perform within their English classes.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 49
Summary, Discussion, and Application
The Vivayic (2008) Whitepaper on Curricula Analysis specifically leans toward
“learned curriculum.” That team broke the process into steps, and determined that in
following these steps, curricula would be reviewed for both rigor and relevance.
Step one was to define a framework for measuring performance expectations
(Vivayic, 2008, p. 9). The general presentiment is such that each curriculum should
define its own framework for measuring performance. The composition curricula excel
in this area overall. In ENGL 0095 and 0096, students are guided directly and grading
rubrics are provided. Reviewing, editing, and rewriting are encouraged until the final
assessment. For ENGL 1101 and 1102, the grading rubrics for writing assignments are
published in the textbook for the course. Each faculty member is directed to include
specific references to them within the syllabus for each course. Though faculty may
apply varying weight standards to various work requirements, all courses state clearly
that a minimum of 70% of the students’ score comes directly from grading writing
assignments.
Step two was to apply the framework to analyze the rigor and relevance of all
existing course objectives. “Performance objectives for the lesson were evaluated first
followed by a review of the lesson’s assessment objectives” (Vivayic, 2008, p. 10). It is
in this area that the elements supported from within the SSU system are more fragile.
That, however, is not necessarily a bad thing. Writing is not an exact science, nor is
teaching. The wide variety of skill sets, background insights, and personalities involved
in the faculty of the first-year composition program allows for a match-up with student
learning styles, needs, and guidance. Students, with careful advising, can benefit
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 50
extensively from the flexibility granted these teachers. The objectives are clearly stated
and direct, the assessments are also lucid. It is only the methods of implementation
which are granted faculty independence.
Step three is identifying content for further analysis (Vivayic, 2008, p. 14). This
point, again, must be developed with an understanding of the complexities of the subject.
Writing, even academic writing, is a reflection of the author’s whole being. As such,
teaching it, guiding it, and grading it are not as straightforward as whether or not “2 + 2 =
4.” The content for these courses is dictated by the need to “foster competence in oral
and written communication” (SSU, 2007, p. 7). Presumably, by competence, the
meaning of “Sufficiency of qualification; capacity to deal adequately with a subject”
should apply (Oxford English Dictionary [OED], 2011). Still, this is a vague standard on
an ambiguous topic. For this, the ENGL 0095 and 0096 programs seem to be better
suited, yet less well adapted. Perhaps this is because the programs are too detailed for the
material indicated. This is a weakness in this program. The ENGL 1101 and 1102
programs, while perhaps lesser suited for such identification of content, seem to outline
the requirements more thoroughly. The grading rubric provided in the syllabi and the
text is properly detailed and makes and excellent teaching tool.
Step four is analyzing the relative level of rigor and relevance (Vivayic, 2008, p.
16). The only way to learn to write is to write. The extensive writing requirements of
all courses presented to freshman at SSU provide ample opportunity for students to write,
to learn, to review, to edit, and to write again. Students who participate fully in each
level of the program would be hard-pressed not to grow in writing ability through the
process.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 51
The program presented in the ENGL 0095/0096 course framework would perhaps
be better served by presenting these programs in a more compressed format using the exit
exam structure as a guide during the second half of the program. Instead of a sixteen
week term for each, an eight-week term may be adequate and could enhance student
awareness of the program be moving them through it with less tedium. During the last
few weeks before the exit exam, the students would be drilled in the compressed essay
format rather than the encouraged review format currently encouraged. The essay
presented in the Appendix of the textbook for ENGL 1101 should, perhaps be presented
to those students in ENGL 0095/0096, and the Longman Concise Companion may be a
textbook well suited for those students as well.
Curriculum Analysis is not an exact science. It is well and good to state that a
goal exists and that a curriculum does or does not meet that goal. However, while a
curriculum may meet a goal, it may not meet it as well as the students deserve. That is a
more amorphous issue.
The existing curriculum for ENGL 0095/0096 is tedious and labored. Further, it
does not seem to truly meet the prescribed goal of preparing the students for the next
level of class. As mentioned above, a more compressed version directed toward that goal
would be more efficacious. The tools presently incorporated in the ENGL 1101/1102
curriculum would also be applicable to the ENGL 0095/0096 curriculum, particularly the
Longman Concise Companion.
Because this university has open enrollment, there is a requirement to provide
basic, fundamental instruction in English composition and grammar to some students.
However, a revamping of the program could be beneficial. Much like some of the other
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 52
schools, the ACT/SAT/COMPASS requirement could be lowered a few points for entry
into the ENGL1101 program, and the ENGL 1102 program placement could be raised.
Those students who require the most basic writing instruction could still take those
classes as needed.
For those that place into basic writing and/or mechanics, it is clear that emphasis
needs to be on achieving the specific goals set forth: preparing for the exit exam and
ENGL 1101. The Longman Concise Companion can be used for those students, who can
then keep that text throughout their academic career and continue to use it. The text
currently in use for ENGL1101/1102 should be considered for reassignment to the course
in Argument, and another text considered for the basic Discourse and Composition
program. The goals outlined for ENGL 1101/1102 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 would be a tremendous loss to the educated populace
were it to change. However, the Composition sequence at Shawnee State, in its
continuous effort to meet the constantly changing needs of the ever-expanding student
populace, may consider making ENGL 1101/1102 a broader scope.
Shawnee is a growing and forward thinking University that is somewhat mired in
its open enrollment program. However, there are venues in place to support that program
while reducing the pedantic 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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 53
References
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college
remediation. Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-900.
Bahr, P. R. (2010). Revisiting the efficacy of postsecondary remediation: The
moderating effects of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher
Education, 33(2). 177-205.
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to
success. Future of Children, 20(1), 109-133.
Burlison, J., Murphy C., & Dwyer W. (2009). Evaluation of the motivated strategies for
learning questionnaire for predicting academic performance in college students of
varying scholastic aptitude. (Report). College Student Journal. Project Innovation
(Alabama) 1313-1316.
Callahan, M.K., & Chumney, D. (2009). 'Write like college': How remedial writing
courses at a community college and a research university position 'at-risk' students
in the field of higher education. Teachers College Record, 111, 1619-1664.
Carey, K. (2010). Why we need a 'race to the top' for higher education. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 56(26), A30-A30.
Chen, L. (2010). Enhancement of student learning performance using personalized
diagnosis and remedial learning system. Computers and Education, 56(2011),
289-299.
Cline, Z, Bissell, J., Hafner, A., & Katz, M. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap.
Leadership, 37(2), 30-33.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 54
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 55
Katsinas, S.G, & Bush, V.B. (2006). Assessing what matters: Improving college
readiness 50 years beyond Brown. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 30, 771-786.
McGann, M. (1947). Diagnostic testing and remedial teaching for common errors in
mechanics of English made by college freshmen. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 38(8), 499-503.
Nichols, J. & McCartney-Christensen, H.. (2009). Instructor’s resource manual: The
writer’s world: Essays. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Ohio Board of Regents. (2007). English expectations for college readiness. Proceedings
of the K-16 Seamless Transition. Retrieved from
http://regents.ohio.gov/collegereadiness/policies/EngCollegeRediness07.pdf.
Olson, L. (2006). Calif. high schoolers get preview of college-placement test. Education
Week, 25(33), 27-27.
Perkins-Gough, D. (2008). Unprepared for college. Educational Leadership, NOV, 88-90.
Reid, S. (2011). The Prentice Hall Guide for College Writers. Boston: Prentice.
Reid, S. (Ed.). (2007). Purposes: A prentice hall pocket reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Suddick, D. (1982). A re-examination of the use of the test of standard written English
and resulting placement for older upper-division and master’s level students.
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 42. 367-369.
Shawnee State University (2010). The Placement Program: English Placement.
Unpublished manuscript. Office of Admissions. Shawnee State University.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 56
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/.
Vivayic (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.
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 57
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........................32
4.2 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within the state of Ohio........36
4.3 Preparatory and freshman level English courses within accreditation peers.....37
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 58
Index to Appendices
Title Description Page
A Syllabus Template, ENGL 0095........................................................................59
B Syllabus Template, ENGL 0096........................................................................65
C Syllabus Template, ENGL 1101........................................................................72
D Syllabus Template, ENGL 1102........................................................................77
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 59
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:
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 60
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 61
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 62
Pass the English 0095 Exit Exam.
Scoring of Essays: The following rubric indicates how your English 0095 essays will be
scored.
The Exceptional Essay The Satisfactory Essay The Unsatisfactory
Essay
Shows evidence of
planning and/or revision.
Shows some evidence of
planning and revision.
Shows little or no
evidence of planning or
revision.
Contains an appropriate
thesis and/or controlling
idea.
Contains a thesis, but this
thesis may not be entirely
appropriate.
Lacks a thesis or
controlling idea.
Fulfills all aspects of the
assignment. Responds
adequately to the
assignment.
Indicates that the writer
understood the gist of the
assignment, but the writer
may have had some
difficulty fulfilling the
assignment.
May fail to fulfill the
assignment.
Contains adequately
constructed paragraphs.
Contains paragraphs with
topic sentences, but there
may be some flaws in
paragraph construction.
Contains flawed
paragraph construction.
Expresses developed
ideas. All or most of the
paragraphs 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
major sentence errors.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 63
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 64
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 65
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;
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 66
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 67
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 68
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 69
paragraph construction.
Expresses developed
ideas. All or most of the
paragraphs are long
enough to indicate that the
writer has considered each
subtopic.
Expresses some developed
ideas, but other ideas may
be underdeveloped.
Expresses ideas which are
severely underdeveloped.
Such essays are often
characterized by short
paragraphs.
Has no more than three
major sentence errors
(fragments, run-ons,
comma splices, non-
parallelism, mixed
constructions).
May have as many as 10
major sentence errors.
May have 11 or more
major sentence errors.
Demonstrates a sense of
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 70
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:
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 71
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 72
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
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 73
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 74
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 successfully complete English 1101 should be able to
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
Students who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to
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 successfully complete English 1101 should be able to
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 75
Acknowledge the work of others when appropriate. They will recognize, understand, and
avoid plagiarism by providing complete documentation that adheres to MLA format.
Composing in Electronic Environments
Students who successfully complete English 1101 should be able to
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:
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 76
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 77
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:
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 78
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
Students who successfully complete English 1102 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 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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 79
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
Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to
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.
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 80
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
Students who successfully complete English 1102 should be able to
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:
FRESHMAN COMPOSITION 81
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.