[ HOME ]

The Developmental Writing Program redesign at Jackson State Community College
By Anna Harrington, Associate Professor of English, Jackson State Community College

             In summer, 2007, the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) mandated that colleges in its system redesign their developmental education programs with the twin goals of expediting students through the developmental levels and reducing instruction costs for the institutions; further, they mandated* that the redesign make use of modularized instruction which would rely heavily on technology to facilitate the courses.  TBR required that the redesigned courses begin in the spring 2008 semester, that the redesign be based upon assessment data, and that it follow pre-created program plans provided by the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT), an educational consulting organization hired to direct the redesign initiative and whose primary concern and marketing initiatives focus on cutting costs for institutions.  Grant monies for restructuring were awarded to those programs whose proposed redesigns seemed to most effectively meet the redesign goals and cut costs. 

            It was clear from the beginning that our program would not receive any funding to carry out our redesign.  First, our program already had one of the lowest—if not the lowest—instruction-to-student cost at $110 per student per course, so there was no place to make additional cuts.  Further, our math program’s innovative Smart Math Lab was certain to get monies, and we knew that TBR would not fund two redesigns at our small school.  And to be truthful, we didn’t really want any money.  We knew how convoluted our original program was, and we knew that we would be starting completely from scratch. We didn’t have the time or manpower to do the redesign and report the assessment results the way that a funded redesign would mandate. 

            Instead, we chose to do it on our own, using our own very limited resources.  So, in spring 2008, I stepped into the role of Writing Courses Coordinator and was given a one-course release for the semester.  Working in conjunction with the Director of the Developmental Studies Program and the English Department, I worked to redesign our DSPW courses.  Spring 2008 was spent determining needs, deciding on assessment tools, creating documents, and planning.  Finally, by fall 2008, we were ready to go forward with our redesign; the new program was initiated, with changes mandated for the classroom.

Part I – The Need for Change

            The call for redesign forced us to take a close look at our DSPW courses and reflect on how we had been dealing with the courses in the past.  What we found was a lack of cohesion and consistency that was deeply troubling.

            As a department and college, we had given little attention to our DSPW instructors or classes in the past.  Due to TBR and SACS guidelines that allow anyone with a Bachelor’s degree to teach DSP, approximately 80% of our DSPW instructors are adjunct (In fall 2009, the number increased to 84%).  Many had never taught at the college level and so did not know the demands and requirements of Comp I classes—which is the goal of the DSPW courses, to prepare students to enter Comp I at a C-grade skills level.  Some had never taught anywhere before.  One did not know how to turn on a computer.  But the need to staff these classes, especially at the off-campus centers, did not allow for hiring more qualified instructors. 

            Although these instructors should have been given the most training and assistance, none was being given.  We had no standardized training programs or teaching materials for adjuncts; those few training sessions which were held were few and far between.  Although every DSPW class is set within a computer classroom, some instructors did not know how to use the technology, nor did they require students to use it.  There was no impetus for them to use technology in the classroom, and there was no training on new technology or how to use it to its full potential in the classroom.  More seriously, many had no knowledge of Comp I requirements; they were basing their student assessment on their own high school classes, if they were high school teachers, or on their own memories of their Comp I experiences in college.  They had no idea what we expected in Comp I at JSCC. 

The result of all these factors was obvious.  The adjunct instructors were marginalized and isolated, especially at the off-campus centers, and this isolation had a direct effect on the students.  Because there was no standard syllabus, course content varied widely.  Some instructors never taught grammar and focused only on writing, while some never asked their students to write.  On the opposite extreme, one DSPW 0800 instructor required his students to purchase, read, and analyze a Carson McCullers novel, complete extended research and writing on AIDS, and discuss the poems of William Carlos Williams.  Students who repeated the course with a different instructor were confused by the difference in classroom policies, assignments, and grading.  Grade inflation was rampant.  Data showed that adjuncts were passing students at an inflated rate when compared to full-time instructors; one instructor passed all her DSPW 0700 students with either A’s or B’s, and one instructor at a branch gave A’s or B’s to all his 0800 students.  Some students were being passed into Comp I before they were ready, which resulted in high failure rates; others who were ready to move on were being held back.

            Likewise, the program as a whole had been largely ignored.  Although the course objectives were set by the state, there were no other standard materials, including ways to determine if students had met the objectives; the lack of a standard syllabus allowed for wide course drift, inconsistent assignments, wide variations in classroom policies, and untrustworthy evaluations across sections.  We had no cohesive vision for the program. We also had no systematic assessment plan in place with which to gauge the program.  Each semester, Comp I success rates were examined to determine the Comp I success rates of DSPW students, but this did not allow us to determine if students were writing at the Comp I level when they entered Comp I.  While we looked at DSPW student success and attrition rates, it was done only once every five years.  We also required a timed essay by each DSPW student, given during week 12 of the semester, which was graded in a group reading session by full-time instructors using a holistic grading scale; the data was assembled, but nothing ever happened because of it—the DSPW instructors were never told how to improve their teaching based upon the data, the data were not shared among instructors, and no student was held back because of the timed essay. 

            However, being ignored did have some advantages.  Because we were not asking for any money or resources beyond a printing budget, the administration did not really care what changes I made as long as I fulfilled TBR requirements and did not increase cost ratios.  The English Department, while concerned that the students entering their Comp I classes might not be qualified, was not concerned enough about the DSPW courses to take an active role in the redesign when initially asked to participate in Summer 2007, except worrying that any changes might result in an additional workload or eliminating faculty jobs.  Therefore, I had little to no resistance to the changes or the proposed assessment.  The downside, though, is that the administration and department still feel no real ownership for the DSPW program, and the reports and documentation I prepared and submitted last year about the program have mostly gone unread.

Part II – What Changes Were Made

            One of our primary goals was to eliminate course drift, and we planned to do this by creating standardized materials across all sections.  Through discussion with the English Department and Director of Developmental Studies, I created a new standardized syllabus which eliminated much of the confusion for repeating students and differences in student expectations and requirements.  We standardized the policies regarding attendance, course objectives, and other classroom policies; we standardized course materials and grading tools across all sections, so that students would meet the same requirements to pass into Comp I, so that confusion would be eliminated for repeating students, and so that all instructors required similar assignments.  The documents were made available in a print handbook, as well as posted online to an eLearn master course shell, to which all instructors had access; these documents could easily be copied into the shells for their own courses.

To aid in standardizing student expectations and speeding student progress, and to help ensure that only those students who were ready were passed into Comp I, we created individual skills modules based on the course objectives within which students would demonstrate proficiency.  Skills modules in which students demonstrated proficiency on their diagnostic essay and My Writing Lab grammar pre-test could be skipped, but students would be required to complete those modules in which they demonstrated weakness.  The idea was that time could be saved by targeted only weaknesses.  Those students, then, who completed their modules and improved their weaknesses could test out early, sometimes before the end of the semester.  In order to modularize, we needed to change the grade scale.  Instead of using letter grades or percentages on class work, we switched to a 6-point holistic grading scale which graded skills on a continuum of strength/weakness.  This scale was based on the course objectives and Comp I writing proficiencies.   To accompany this holistic scale, I created an essay rubric which targeted the modularized skills areas and which instructors could use as a checklist to evaluate student writing.  Then, based upon their writing and grammar diagnostics, each student was given an individualized study plan, targeting their weaknesses.

We also wanted to ensure that our instructors were teaching the necessary skills, but we also wanted to maintain academic freedom within the classroom.  We needed to prevent situations that had occurred in the past when instructors required either no grammar or no writing in-class. We decided to require instructors to split their instruction time:   1/3 – Grammar (lecture or student work), 1/3 – In-class writing (student work only), and  1/3 – Left to instructor’s discretion.  We stressed that the instructor could use his or her remaining 1/3 time for whatever the class needed to focus on or whatever the instructor deemed most important.  We also reiterated that whatever they decided to give for homework assignments was completely left to their own discretion, as long as they were appropriate for the class level, as were whatever topics they decided to lecture on or assign for writing.

            Most importantly, we made certain that our instructors no longer felt isolated and that they received the training, materials, and support they needed to be effective teachers.  In addition to standardizing the syllabus and other teaching materials, we provided each instructor with a comprehensive handbook that contained copies of school policies, all the new standardized materials and documentation, sample schedules and assignments, samples of graded DSPW and Comp I papers, and thorough instructions on how to use each new document.  In addition to the printed handbook, all documents were uploaded to a generic WebCT/eLearn shell, which all instructors could access whenever they needed and from which they could transfer documents directly into their class shells.  We also held one workshop each semester to discuss different elements of teaching, from using the internet to grade inflation, and those who were unable to attend were sent links for online training and presentations.  An email list was created and used to send out information and updates, to keep instructors from feeling marginalized and isolated.  We also made use of our human resources.  A few full-time faculty members worked as mentors to answer instructor questions and give support, and we were able to use Writing Center tutors as classroom writing fellows in some of the sections.  These fellows assisted the instructors and students with a variety of tasks, including using the technology, giving writing advice, acting as mentors to the students, and tutoring during class sessions.  Although we requested a Writing Technology Assistant in our original proposal to TBR, who could help with technology in the classrooms, we were not given the position.

And to determine if these changes were working, we created and implemented a series of assessment and documentation.  We created an assessment timeline with documentation which had to be submitted to me by certain deadlines in the semester.  First, instructors had to report writing scores for the diagnostic writing assignment given on the first day of class, the mid-term timed writing assignment, and the final essay.  In the past, the department timed writing essay was graded by full-time instructors; however, because the Comp I instructors had been assigned new TBR assessment activities and no longer had the time to do both assessments, we changed the assessment and asked the DSPW instructors to grade the timed essays.  I required copies of each scored essay, in order to help fight grade inflation, which was one of our main concerns reported to TBR in our original proposal.  We collected the pre-test grammar scores from My Writing Lab during week 2 and the post-test scores during week 15.  Because we did not have a clear idea of who our DSPW students were, we asked each DSPW student to take a survey during week 1 which asked questions about their demographics, education background, technology comfort levels, and other topics of interest to our program.  Finally, at the end of the semester, we also collected all the final grades from each section, including PRs, Ws, and FAs.

Part III—The Results

            The results of our redesign show a definite trend toward improvement and instructor satisfaction, as well as a successful effort to combat grade inflation, especially at the off-campus centers and at the 0700 level.

            Overall, the focus on modularized instruction seems to be effective for the program as a whole.  In summer 2009, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness and the new Director of Developmental Studies reported to TBR are part of our Performance Funding Report that our redesign demonstrated a 38% increase in student success rates over the previous year.   These numbers, however, are dubious.  First, a direct comparison between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 should not be made because assessment was changed; the DSPW instructors evaluated their own students, not the full-time professors, and any change in readers creates a change in assessment results because inter-rater reliability can be challenged and because differences in reader groups can be assumed.  Second, there was ample evidence of grade inflation by the instructors, which carried over into the assessment results; one instructor’s assessment was so inflated that she gave 4’s and 5’s to her 0700 students—a 5 corresponds to a B in Comp I, a 4 to a C, and 0700 students generally score only 2’s and 3’s because they work all semester to learn to write a single paragraph. 

Although the exact percentage as reported to TBR is suspect, I believe that the reported increase in student success rates and retention rates for the redesigned year does show a trend toward improvement.  Targeting students’ individual weaknesses allowed for more focused instruction, and assessment data showed strong improvements among students as the semester progressed, both with writing and grammar, and our grammar post-tests demonstrated significant improvements in grammar abilities.  As noted below, we were also able to more accurately determine correct placement for students and move those students who were wrongly placed into their correct courses the same semester, thus saving students time and money.

            We also decreased the time that many students spent in DSPW.  In addition to the benefits of targeting their deficient skills, requiring a diagnostic during the first class session also helped.  Many students who were misplaced due to low ACT scores and who missed the opportunity to challenge their placement during the summer were moved into their proper course level.  While exact numbers are not available (as many instructors did not complete the Recommendation for Advancement Form that we required to track these changes), at least a dozen students were moved from 0800 into Comp I, and several were moved from 0700 into 0800.  The creation of combo courses with 0700 and 0800 students in the same section allowed for at least three more students to complete both courses during the same semester.  (Again, these are only the students who were made known to the Director and Writing Courses Coordinator; others might have moved without being reported to us.) 

One area in which we failed, however, was moving students up at mid-term.  Students who were ready to be released from their current level and move up to the next were unable to enroll in the 7-week 0800 and Comp I classes which began at mid-term due to conflicts in class or work schedules, as well as some students not having the funds to pay for the additional tuition and fees.  Because of this, we are still offering 7-week classes, but we are no longer holding open spots for DSPW students.  Likewise, the combo classes were not as beneficial as they seemed, as many instructors found themselves teaching two lectures instead of one, and the difference in skills between 0700 and 0800 students was so great as to cause difficulties for both groups.  Although we continue to offer combo classes at the off-campus centers as a way to allow the 0700 courses to make, I am against offering combo classes at the main campus and offering them in the off-campus centers only when a separate 0700 class lacks enough students to make.

            Grade inflation was one area which was successfully addressed.  Because many of our instructors have never taught Comp I, and some had never taught before at all, grades were inflated, especially at the 0700 level and at the off-campus centers when compared to the full-time instructors’ grades.  We addressed this concern by holding a grading workshop in the spring; those instructors who were not able to attend had one-on-one meetings with me to discuss grading criteria and expectations.  In the spring, there was a noticeable difference in grade inflation, with the overall scores much lower, even for a spring semester. 

            Our main goal of providing support and training to the instructors was achieved overwhelmingly.  Many instructors sought out assistance and advice from the full-time instructors, which had not happened previously.  Also, they commented positively about the handbook and its resources, especially the grading section which gave sample graded papers from DSPW and Comp I.  The new attendance policies and standardized syllabus also allowed instructors to feel more comfortable denying student requests to excuse their absences, accept late papers, or give them incompletes for the semester.  These new feelings of inclusion and support were seen in the grading workshop held during spring semester.  Although the workshop was unpaid, we had eight part time instructors attend—this was almost 75% of our adjuncts that spring.

            Because our resources were limited, we were unable to complete several more projects that we originally planned.  There simply was not the manpower or time to complete them.  Specifically, this included putting the separate skills modules onto eLearn so all the activities a student would have to pass to complete the module would be available online and not just in their books or as handouts.  We also had plans to create a customized book.  This book would be arranged according to skills and reflected the individual skills modules, rather than by rhetorical modes, as most textbooks are arranged.  It would also save students money because it would be cheaper than the current text, and it would be used on both the 0700 and 0800 levels, allowing students to save money by buying only one book.  At this point, however, the book remains incomplete.  Also, as a way to more accurately gauge the program overall, to determine if our goal was being met of students reaching Comp I skills level or if unprepared students were still being passed into the next level, a new assessment tool was planned for this year.  This assessment would ask all Comp I instructors to rate their students’ diagnostic essays as being Comp I level; they would give a simple yes or no answer, and an analysis would be conducted to determine how many DSPW students entering Comp I were not writing on Comp I level and how they were writing compared to those students placed directly into Comp I.  As of this writing, this new assessment tool has also been put on hold.

Conclusion

            In summer 2009, our campus was reorganized, and many changes were made which had a direct effect on our program.  The full-time position of Director of Developmental Studies was combined with the full-time Writing Center Director position into only one position overseeing both areas.  Also, the reorganization eliminated departments; our English Department, which used to staff, train and mentor the adjuncts, no longer exists.  As a result of the department elimination, the person who is now responsible for hiring and staffing adjuncts is an administrative person.  Due to the lack of background knowledge about the redesign, a situation was created in which misinformation was disseminated to the instructors, creating confusion and even contradicting the policies created for the redesign.  Additionally, the comprehensive handbook, which contained over five hundred pages of information and documentation, was rewritten and reduced to just 33 pages; beyond the syllabus, none of the other documents created for the comprehensive handbook remained, including the assessment documents.  I resigned my position as the Writing Courses Coordinator, and as of August, 2009, the position no longer exists to support and mentor the faculty and to gather and analyze data. 

            It is too early to tell whether any of the original elements of the redesign will carry over now that the campus has been reorganized.  Changes to our campus organization and to the redesign for the 2009-2010 year will likely affect assessment and make any comparisons to the 2008-2009 redesign year invalid.  Also, due to an increase in enrollment and the necessity hiring of several new instructors, many of whom have never taught before, I expect grade inflation to increase again this fall; I also expect the lack of a grading section in the new, shortened handbook to have an effect on grades, as well.  Sadly, I fear that any gains we made in individualizing the students’ instruction and decreasing both student costs and the time they spend in DSPW will not persist. 

*Editor's note. It is the understanding of the editor that modularized instruction was perhaps encouraged but not mandated.