September 23, 2002
To: Jo Ann Hodges
Assistant Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
From: Peter Mortensen
Associate Professor, Department of English
Director of Freshman Rhetoric and the Academic Writing Program
Re: Placement in Composition I Courses
Many thanks for your patience in
awaiting a reply to your memo of July 28, 2002.
As you know, I have been working with Dr. Diana Steele in the Office of
Instructional Resources to provide detailed answers to your questions about how
planned changes in campus placement procedures are likely to affect EOP
students enrolling in Composition I courses.
Let me summarize Dr. Steele’s key
findings:
- EOP students who place into RHET 103-104 typically
follow their placements. In Fall
2000, 92% of EOP students who placed into RHET 103 enrolled in and
completed the course. (Presumably a
similar percentage holds for completion of RHET 104, though this was not
studied.) This statistic compares
favorably to a figure of 87% placement compliance for all new students in
2000 who took Rhetoric or Speech Communication course work to satisfy the
Composition I requirement.
- EOP students who place into RHET 103-104 typically do
quite well in the sequence. In Fall
2000, for example, 97% of EOP students who completed RHET 103 did so with
a grade of C- or better: 46% earned As, 44% earned Bs, and 7% earned Cs.
- In Fall 2000, 179 EOP students placed into RHET 105
(excluding Engineering sections) and SPCOM 111. Of that number, 92% passed the course
with a grade of C- or better: 29% earned As, 54% earned Bs, and 9% earned
Cs.
- Looking at a five-year run (Fall 1997-Fall 2001) of
RHET 103-104 placements for EOP students, an average of only 16 EOP
students each year would have placed into another course (usually RHET
105) under the ACT-only placement scheme.
This headcount translates into an average annual movement of 3.3%
of EOP students enrolled in RHET 103-104 into RHET 105. During the five years studied, the
actual number of students affected in a given year ranged from a high of
37 in 1997 (when EOP numbers were almost double what they have been in
recent years) to a low of 2 in 1999.
These and other findings contained
in Dr. Steele’s report lead me to make the following recommendations:
- The campus should follow through with the ACT-only
Rhetoric placement scheme described in my memo to Dennis Baron of March
14, 2002, approved by the College
of Liberal Arts and
Sciences and the Office of the Provost, and readied for implementation by
OIR.
- Academic advisors who work with EOP students should
continue to view Rhetoric placement messages as advisory. In the coming years, the small number of
RHET 105-placed EOP students who would have received RHET 103-104
placements under the retired scheme should have the opportunity to
register for the two-semester sequence if doing so would substantially
improve their chances of becoming successful college writers.
- The procedure for adjusting EOP students’ Rhetoric
placements should be flexible within the limits of existing advising and
instructional resources.
Adjustments might be accomplished as follows:
- at the sole discretion of an academic advisor;
- at the discretion of an academic advisor in
consultation with his/her advisee;
- by an academic advisor in consultation with
the staff of the Academic Writing Program (AWP).
Consultation with AWP could take
the form of informal phone or e-mail exchanges, or a more formal assessment
similar to the current Rhetoric Placement Exam.
If a formal assessment is desirable, a placement score could be
generated and interpreted using the retired placement scheme. (Earning Composition I proficiency this way
would not be an option, however.)
The timing of adjustments should be
carefully thought through. Given
instructional budget constraints and the persistent dearth of instructors
qualified to teach AWP courses, it would be best to make adjustments in advance
of mid-August, preferably in conjunction with students’ summer advising
appointments. And to assure that the
adjustment process does not overwhelm academic advising and AWP, I would
strongly suggest that placement reviews be restricted, by and large, to
students who have earned an ACT English sub-score of 21.
- To discuss and refine procedures for placing EOP
students in first-year Rhetoric courses, representatives of the Freshman
Rhetoric Program and Academic Writing Program should meet with the several
college Assistant Deans who work closely with EOP students. If it would be helpful to have a
representative from the Office of Minority Student Affairs join the
conversation, that should be arranged.
- The college has directed me to evaluate the new
placement scheme after its first year in operation. I would ask that you and other concerned
Assistant and Associate Deans share with me your ideas about how the placement
of EOP students might be evaluated most effectively.
In the pages that follow you will
find narrative responses to the five questions you posed in your memo of July
28, 2002, along with 16 tables of supporting statistical information. Next are charts that answer two research
questions for Fall 2000 EOP freshmen: “How many EOP students registered
according to their placement message?” and “What grade did they earn in the first UIUC Rhet course they took?” All of this material was prepared by Dr. Steele
after we discussed ways of addressing the issues raised in your memo.
I feel confident that EOP students
affected by changes in our approach to Rhetoric placement will continue to have
fair access to appropriate—and excellent—instruction in college writing. I look forward to meeting with you so that we
can continue to discuss our perspectives on this important matter.
cc: Dennis
Baron, Head, Department of English
Keith Marshall, Assistant Provost
Mary Macmanus Ramsbottom, Associate Dean, College of LAS
Ann Mester, Assistant Dean, College of LAS
Diana Steele, Coordinator of Placement and Proficiency Testing, OIR