1. How was the ACT English score cutoff of 20 determined?

 

Based on a five-year comparative analysis of the ACT-English scores of high school students who took the Rhetoric placement test for the years 1997-2001, it was determined that the lowest percentiles for ACT-English scores had remained steady (see Table 1).

 

Specifically, the 5th percentile rank corresponded to an ACT-E score of 19 across all five years, meaning that 95% of the Rhetoric placement test examinees scored 19 or higher on their ACT-E. Thus, it was suggested that students in the fifth percentile of the incoming freshman class be placed into an intensive, two-semester Rhetoric sequence with tutorial, Rhet 101-102. (A distinction is being made between “placement test examinees” and “incoming freshmen” in that not all high school students who take our placement exams ultimately choose to attend UIUC. For example, for the Fall 2000 incoming class there were 6,382 placement test examinees, of whom 5,961 actually enrolled in the fall, 93% of the original group.) The cut score was labeled as 19 such that anyone scoring between 0 and 19 would be placed into Rhet 101-102. Strictly speaking, the range to capture these lowest-scoring students should have been 0 to 18. However, it was thought that those scoring 19 would also benefit from the tutoring offered in Rhet 100.

 

The 10th percentile rank corresponded to an ACT-E score of 21 across all five years, meaning that 90% of the Rhetoric placement test examinees scored 21 or higher on their ACT-E. Thus, it was suggested that students scoring in this group be placed into an intensive, two-semester Rhetoric sequence without tutorial, Rhet 103-104. The cut score was labeled as 20.

 

As seen in Table 1, scores for most of the other percentile ranks edged up by one point over the five years. For example, the 50th percentile was at 27 for the years 1997-2000 but in 2001 it moved up to 28. The fact that 50% of the 2001 students earned an ACT-E score of 28 instead of 27 indicates that more of the students admitted to UIUC are achieving higher ACT-English test scores. Similarly, the 95th percentile was at 33 for the years 1997-2000 but in 2001 it moved up to 34, indicating that more of the top-scoring students admitted to UIUC in 2001 achieved higher ACT-E test scores than the top-scoring students admitted in the previous four years.

 

In order to account for the fact that UIUC is accepting better qualified students (“better” as defined by their ACT scores), adjustments needed to be made in the estimated percentages of freshmen who would be placed into each level of Freshmen Rhetoric. In particular, it was desirable to cap the number of students who would proficiency out of Composition I course work at approximately 20%.

 

A five-year comparative analysis of the ACT-English scores of only the EOP freshmen for the years 1997-2001 indicates an opposite trend (see Table 2). The percentiles are decreasing. For example, in 1997 and 1998 the 10th percentile rank corresponded to an ACT-E score of 18, meaning that 90% of the EOP Rhetoric placement test examinees scored 18 or higher on their ACT-E. In 1999 it fell to 17 and remained there for 2000 and 2001, meaning that 90% of the EOP Rhetoric placement test examinees during these years scored 17 or higher on their ACT-E. With more EOP freshmen earning 17 instead of 18, it might be thought that current EOP students are more in need of Academic Writing Program support than EOP students of five years ago.

 

However, these statistics must be interpreted with caution because large groups of individuals tend to show more variation in both their test scores and their ability than small groups. During this five-year period and especially between 1998 and 1999, the number of students qualifying as EOP dropped by nearly 50% (from a high of 668 in 1997 to a low of 378 in 2001). Without knowing why the number of students qualifying as EOP was reduced, we cannot draw any firm conclusions based on these data. In other words, it is not appropriate to conclude that the 2001 EOP students were less academically prepared than the 1997 EOP students simply because their ACT-E percentile ranks were lower.

 

Nevertheless, percentile data suggest that the lower-scoring half of the EOP student body would qualify for AWP according to the proposed ACT-only scheme (see Table 2). Specifically, the lowest 30% would place into Rhet 101-102 and the next 20% would place into Rhet 103-104. It should be noted that for the three most recent years in the data analysis (2001, 2000, and 1999) when the numbers of EOP students have been quite similar, the ACT-English scores also held steady -- at 19 for the 30th percentile and at 20 for the 40th percentile, which is precisely where the cutoff would be to separate those placing into Rhet 101-102 and those placing into Rhet 103-104.

 

 

 

2. Why such a tight score (no range) for Rhetoric 103-104?

 

Four options for using the ACT-English score for Rhetoric placement were originally delineated, based on placement data for the incoming classes of 2000 and 2001 (see Tables 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d). Only two recent years were chosen for data analysis in order to focus on current trends.

 

Options 1 and 2 had ACT-E scores of 20 and 21 as the cut scores for Rhet 103-104. However, this would have increased the number of students placing into Rhet 103-104 by approximately 62% (from an average of 207 students to an average of 335). It was decided that it would be more desirable to reduce the number of Rhet 103-104 sections modestly than increase them dramatically. Reasons included the fact that highly qualified, experienced instructors are needed to teach the Rhet 103-104 students and the fact that grades in Rhet 103-104 have been high, suggesting that many students could have done well in Rhet 105. For example, of the Fall 2000 freshmen who enrolled in Rhet 103-104, 52.6% earned A’s, 36.5% earned B’s, 7.7% earned C’s and only 1.3% earned D’s and 1.3% earned F’s. Thus, 89% of the Rhet 103-104 students passed with A’s and B’s. (Of the Fall 2000 freshmen who placed into Rhet 103-104 but who chose to enroll in Rhet 105, 88% passed with A’s, B’s, and C’s. If those who placed into Rhet 103-104 but who chose to enroll in SpCom 111 are included with the students who opted for Rhet 105, the percentage of this group earning A’s, B’s, and C’s increases to 91%.)

 

Thus, consideration turned to Options 3 and 4, which in suggesting only 20 as the cut score for Rhet 103-104 would thereby reduce enrollment by approximately 21%. Due to the small range of test scores that ACT uses, namely, from 0 to 36, it was not possible to select a cutoff score that would result in a number of students precisely mirroring the desired Rhet 103-104 enrollment. Ultimately, Option 4 was chosen.

 

Data analysis for the EOP students in the Fall 2000 incoming freshman class indicates that the number of students being placed into Rhet 103-104 would have slightly decreased, had an ACT-only placement scheme been used instead of the ACT+essay placement method (see Table 4.) Specifically, 14% of the EOP students would have placed into Rhet 103-104 under the ACT-only scheme compared to 18% of the EOP students who actually did place into Rhet 103-104 based on their ACT-E scores and their essay scores.

 

Had this proposed ACT-only placement scheme been used from 1997 through 2001, there would have been fewer EOP students placing into Rhet 103-104 each year throughout the five-year period (see Table 5). In terms of percentages of EOP students placing into Rhet 103-104, there would have been little change in 1998 and 1999 but about a 5% change in 1997, 2000, and 2001 (see Table 6). On average, there would have been a 3.3% decrease in the number of students placing into Rhet 103-104 during this five-year period (see below).

 

EOP Students Placing into Rhet 103-104 had ACT-only Been Used, 1997-2001

 

 

ACT+Essay to ACT-only

 

 

 

Year

Change in Number of

EOP students in

Rhet 103-104

Change in Percentage of all EOP students in

Rhet 103-104

 

Change in

Rhet 103-104

 

 

 

 

1997

-32

-4.8

a 34% decrease

1998

-11

-1.7

a 15% decrease

1999

-2

-0.5

a 3% decrease

2000

-14

-3.6

a 20% decrease

2001

-22

-5.8

a 25% decrease

Average

-16

-3.3

 

 

 

 

3. Will EOP students who place in Rhetoric 105 have the opportunity to transfer into Rhetoric 103-104 during the first week or two of the semester, if necessary?

 

Placement recommendations are precisely that -- recommendations. Advisors do have the option of suggesting that their students actually enroll in either a higher or lower course than the course in which they placed.

 

Data analysis indicates that about 84% of the incoming freshmen of Fall 2000 followed their Rhetoric placement message. This percentage includes the students who proficiencied and who consequently chose not to enroll in any Rhetoric class (see Table 7). Data for those students who had Rhetoric placement test scores and who enrolled in a Rhetoric course show that 87% followed the placement message.

 

Data analysis of only the EOP students in the Fall 2000 incoming class indicates that 95.8% followed their Rhetoric placement message (see Table 8). Data for those Fall 2000 EOP students who had Rhetoric placement test scores and who enrolled in a Rhetoric course show that 96.3% followed the placement message. Of the 358 EOP students receiving a placement message, one-quarter (26%) placed into Rhet 101-102 and almost one-fifth (18%) placed into Rhet 103-104, while over half (53%) placed into Rhet 105.

 

Table 9 shows the grades earned by the Fall 2000 EOP freshmen. These numbers are then broken down into two smaller tables, Table 9a and Table 9b, showing, respectively, the grades earned by those who followed the placement recommendation and the grades earned by those who did not follow the placement recommendation. As a group, 93% of the EOP students earned passing grades ranging from A+ to C- while 4% earned poor grades ranging from D+ to F. A small percentage of these Fall 2000 incoming EOP freshmen (2%) had not yet registered for a Rhetoric course as of Spring 2002 registration, and thus no grades are available.

 

Of those who followed the placement recommendation, the percentage of those earning A’s, B’s, and C’s was 94%. Of those who did not follow the recommendation, the percentage of those earning A’s, B’s, and C’s was 85%.

 

Of the Fall 2000 EOP incoming freshmen who placed into Rhet 103-104, 92.4% enrolled in Rhet 103 for Fall 2000. Of those who placed into Rhet 103-104 but who chose to enroll in Rhet 105 (7.6%), 40% studied Rhet 105 in Fall 2000 and 60% studied it in Spring 2001.

 

 

 

4. What criteria will academic advisors use to enroll EOP students (whether all EOP students or only Bridge/Transition students) in the Academic Writing Program?

 

For much of the 1980s, placement recommendations for EOP students were made entirely at the discretion of their advisors. The OIR placement table stated that if a student had scored between 0 and 27 on the ACT-English and was an EOP student, he or she was to consult with the advisor for Rhetoric placement. (Anyone scoring 28 to 36 proficiencied Composition I coursework.)

 

In 1987 when the essay was implemented, EOP students were instructed to consult with their advisors if their Rhetoric score (ACT-E + essay) ranged from 0 to 35, or if their Rhetoric score was 36 or higher and their essay was less than 6.

 

The criteria that EOP academic advisors used in the past can be re-visited in order to determine whether they are still relevant and applicable for Fall 2003. Alternatively, placement criteria can be written anew. The EOP academic advisors could also be given the option of having an EOP student submit a writing sample to the Rhetoric Department, if the advisor wishes to have more information before making a placement recommendation. This would be similar to the process currently used with transfer students.

 

Table 10 compares the placement recommendations that the Fall 2000 EOP freshmen would have received, had the proposed ACT-only scheme been used, to their actual enrollment decisions. Two-thirds of those who would have placed into Rhet 103-104 according to the proposed ACT cutoffs enrolled in Rhet 103, according to the current placement system. Most of those who would not have followed their placement recommendation chose to enroll in a single-semester course, namely, Rhet 105 (27%).

 

 

 

5. Were EOP students considered separately from other entering freshmen when creating the ACT-only scheme? Do you have statistics to support your claims?

 

Yes, EOP students were considered when the Rhetoric Department was discussing the implications of converting to an ACT-only placement scheme. However, separate data analyses for EOP students had not been carried out when the ACT-only scheme was suggested. The tables accompanying this report contain the results of data analyses recently conducted solely to investigate the patterns of the EOP students.

 

Tables 11-16 offer supplementary information.