Student Response to a Corequisite Pilot Program: A Retrospective
Keywords:
education, developmental writing, corequisite courses, pilot program, developmental educationAbstract
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36896/1.2fa2
This retrospective article presents the results of a pilot study on student perceptions of a corequisite model for developmental writing. Qualitative survey data was collected at the beginning, middle, and end of Fall 2013 at a large public university in central Texas. A total of 21 students participated in this study. Eleven students who were near the cut-off for the placement exam were enrolled in a first-semester composition course with other students who placed directly into first-semester composition. These 11 students also agreed to meet outside of the composition classroom at a set time for the corequisite course. Another ten students who were near the cut-off for the placement exam were placed in a traditional 16-week developmental writing course that served as a control. Responses were analyzed using coding practices outlined by Saldaña (2009), including initial coding, categorizing, and theming. Themes that emerged in the responses of students enrolled in the traditional 16-week developmental writing course included the following: (a) this course is pointless/a waste, (b) mismatch between placement and self-perception, and (c) transferability. Themes that emerged in the responses of students enrolled in the corequisite model included the following: (a) a lot is riding on success in the corequisite composition course, (b) unsure/nervous about expectations, and (c) improved self-efficacy at the end of the course. The major implication of this study is the importance of including student voices in the implementation of models for developmental education.
References
Adams, P. (2016). ALP FAQs. Basic Writing e-Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from https://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/Adams.pdf
Adler-Kassner, L., & Harrington, S. (2002). Basic writing as a political act: Public conversations about writing and literacies. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Agnew, E., & McLaughlin, M. (2001). Those crazy gates and how they swing: Tracking the system that tracks African-American students. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 85-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bartholomae, D. (1993). The tidy house: Basic writing in the American curriculum. Journal of Basic Writing, 12(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.1986.5.1.02
Collins, T. G., & Lynch, K. (2001). Mainstreaming? Eddy, rivulet, backwater, site specificity. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 73-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Connecticut S.B. No. 40, Public Act No. 12-40. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/act/pa/pdf/2012PA-00040-R00SB-00040-PA.pdf
Evans, J. (2016). To live with it: Assessing an accelerated basic writing program from the perspective of teachers. Basic Writing e-Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from https://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/Evans%20.pdf
Fitzgerald, S. H. (2001). The context determines our choice: Curriculum, students, and faculty. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 215-223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Florida SB 1720, Education. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2013/html/501
Galindo, B., Castaneda, S. Gutierrez, E., Tejada, Jr., A., & Wallace, D. (2014). Challenging our labels: Rejecting the language of remediation. Young Scholars in Writing, 11, 5-16.
Grego, R., & Thompson, N. (1996). Repositioning remediation: Renegotiating composition's work in the academy. College Composition and Communication, 47(1), 62-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/358274
Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Belfield, C., Jaggars, S. S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for accelerated academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) effective and affordable? (CCRC Working Paper No. 21). Retrieved from Community College Research Center website: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/acceleratingacademic-success-remedial-english.html
McNenny, G. (2001). Writing instruction and the postremedial university: Setting the scene for the mainstreaming debate in basic writing. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 1-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Michas, L. C., Newberry, M., Uehling, K. S., & Wolford, A. L. (2016). A university-community college collaborative project to create co-requisite offerings and reduce remediation. Basic Writing e-Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from https://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/Michas%20et%20al%20.pdf
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (2016). College completion: Report to the legislature. Retrieved from https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2016/mandated/160011.pdf
Mlynarczyk, R. (2016). Acceleration vs. remediation: What's in a name for composition studies? Basic Writing e-Journal, 14(1). Retrieved from https://bwe.ccny.cuny.edu/Mlynarczyk%20.pdf
Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization. (CCRC Working Paper No. 29). Retrieved from Community College Research Center website: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/facilitating-learningcontextualization-working-paper.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111416227
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Technical Report No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning.
Rigolino, R., & Freel, P. (2007). Re-Modeling basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 26(2), 49-72. https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2007.26.2.04
Rodby, J., & Fox, T. (2000). Basic work and material acts: The ironies, discrepancies, and disjunctures of basic writing and mainstreaming. Journal of Basic Writing, 19(1), 84-99. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/jbw/v19n1/rodby.pdf
https://doi.org/10.37514/JBW-J.2000.19.1.09
Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the Boundary. New York, NY: Penguin.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Los Angelos, CA: Sage.
Shor, I. (2001). Errors and economics: Inequality breeds remediation. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 29-54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Soliday, M. (1996). From the margins to the mainstream: Reconceiving remediation. College Composition and Communication, 47(1), 85-100.
https://doi.org/10.2307/358275
Texas H.B. No. 2223. (2017). Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB02223I.htm
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, College for All Texans. (2013). Non-course competencybased developmental education: Challenges, interventions, and recommendations/ A report to the Texas Legislature as required by Rider 34, General Appropriations Act, 82nd Texas Legislature.
Two-Year College English Association (TYCA). (2014). TYCA white paper on developmental education reforms. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Resources/Journals/TETYC/0423-mar2015/TETYC0423White.pdf
Wiley, M. (2001). Mainstreaming and other experiments in a learning community. In G. McNenny & S. H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. (pp. 173-191). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
