Running Head: DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

Developmental Writing and the Literature Janet Kirchner University of Nebraska, Lincoln

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

Abstract In this paper, I give an overview of the research trends in developmental writing, including the research in basic writing (what universities call developmental writing) and current trends in developmental writing. I also discuss how I plan to ground my own research in Bourdieus theory of cultural capital and in narrative inquiry. With growing pressure from outside entities to show progress in developmental education results, many institutions are relying on research to inform best practices. However, much of the research does not look closely at the students involved. Without an understanding of students cultural backgrounds, the lives they led before entering the developmental writing classroom, and the transition they make when they enter college, reforms can be misguided.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

Developmental Writing and the Literature Though over 60 percent of entering students in community colleges take developmental coursework (also called remedial, foundational, basic, or college preparatory) (Bailey, 2009), little work has been done to study the developmental classroom or the students who enter these classrooms. Nationally, there is much discussion about the costs of developmental education programs that seem to offer little return for the investment (Bailey and Cho, 2010). Less than 25 percent of students who enroll in developmental education courses will graduate within eight years (Bailey and Cho, 2010). The success rate concerns more than the instructors and students themselves since millions of tax payer dollars also go into remediation for students underprepared for college. The low success rates alarm those concerned with money, but also concern those who see the community college as access to social mobility for poor, working class, and minority students. The problem of limited success for developmental writing students has been approached by university professors, community college instructors, and researchers from a variety of perspectives, but more work could be done to describe the students who take these classes. A better understanding of who the students are, including their challenges and strengths, can help inform curriculum and program-level changes in developmental writing. Much of the literature based on developmental writing (the courses I teach) grew out of the work of Shaughnessys (1977) work, Errors and Expectations. Shaughnessy (1977) was one of the first professors of basic writing at the City University of New York (CUNY) after the college switched to an open admissions system. Basic Writing was what Shaughnessy called

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

the courses offered to university students that were courses designed to prepare students for college-level writing courses. Like Developmental Writing (the term preferred in most community colleges), Basic Writing courses usually bore no degree or transfer-level credit, but they would count toward GPA and financial aid purposes. Like many instructors and professors even today, Shaughnessy (1977) found that she was not prepared to teach the new population of students that came to college with the advent of the open admissions system. In order to help other teachers new to Basic Writing, Shaughnessys work analyzed common writing errors in Basic Writing students work. Shaughnessy (1977) writes that her book assumes that programs are not the answers to the learning problems of students but that teachers are and that, indeed, good teachers create good programs, that the best programs are developed in situ, in response to the needs of individual student populations and as reflections of the particular histories and resources of individual colleges (p. 6). In this sense, Shaughnessy could be considered an early practitioner-researcher. Shaugnessys book focused heavily on student errors, a focus that became common in many basic writing courses. Horner and Lu (1999) critique this focus, viewing basic writing as a place where students and teachers might challenge the political landscape that placed students into basic writing in the first place. Likewise, Mutnick (1996) argues: Rather than view the margin as a site of deprivation, it could become a site of resistance to oppressive conditions like high-interest loans, part-time employment, racism, class prejudice, linguistic chauvinism, and other forms of discrimination (p. 196). Horner and Lu (1999) and Mutnick (1996) envisioned courses that invited students into the discussion about social issues, not courses that continued drill and kill approaches common in such courses.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

In practice, though, traditional basic writing courses continued to focus on student error. Around the same time as Horner and Lu (1999) and Mutnick (1996), many university professors began arguing that basic writers should be mainstreamed, arguing that treating the developmental population differently does little to introduce new writers to academic language (McNenny, 2001). Those who taught basic writing courses at the university level focused on bringing students into the conversationnot on basic sentence-level skills (Bartholomae, 2005). However, as calls for more standards and integrity in the university system became heeded, many universities have eliminated developmental programs altogether. For example, the City University of New York (CUNY), the college that had experimented with open admissions in the 1970s and led to Shaughnessys (1977) ground-breaking work in basic writing, ended its open admissions policy in 2000. Many state universities are also moving away from offering developmental education, referring students with low ACT or SAT scores to community colleges. Because of this shift, discussion about developmental education has moved to the community college. Much of the early work on basic writing was written by university professors, working with students who were likely close to college-ready, but needed some assistance with the transition to academic writing. For many of these students, mainstreaming was a definite possibility. In addition, courses that brought students into the conversation were important in that the students enrolled in colleges and universities were there to get 4-year degrees. It was very important that students understood academic writing in order to be successful in future coursework.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

At the community college level, however, there are two key differences. One, the backgrounds of the students can be far more diverse. The students in basic writing classes in universities certainly had their own struggles, often based upon socioeconomic struggles and/or cultural differences from mainstream college students. In the community college, though, students in developmental writing courses may have had little schooling at all and returned for a GED, may be English language learners, and/or may have experienced extreme poverty. Many developmental writing students in community college classrooms had never imagined that they would go to college and did not take any college preparatory classes in high school. Students returning twenty or more years after high school are also more common in the community college than in the traditional university. A second key difference is level of educational attainment desired. A student in a 4-yearschool likely hopes to achieve a bachelors degree or beyond. Community college students may vary tremendously in the degree they seek. Some community college students do want to transfer some day. However, others are at the community college for a vocational degree in programs such as automotive, motorcycle repair, welding, or machine tool. Those seeking Associate of Applied Science degrees may only need to take one level of college writing and perhaps only one other general education course that requires writing. Other students may be at the community college for truck driver certification or another certificate of training. Such students will take even fewer academic courses. While basic writing and developmental writing courses have the same general goals of preparing students for college-level writing, there is quite a bit of difference between the audiences for both courses.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

Research in developmental writing has been generally more practical than research conducted in basic writing, which often focused on theoretical issues. Qualitative studies of developmental writing students have been conducted, but the goal of these studies has been to shed light on community college issues; the focus was not necessarily on the students and the classroom (Herideen, 1998; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996; and Shaw, Valadez, & Rhoads, 1999). Studies of developmental writing student persistence have also been conducted (Barbatis, 2010). Herideen (1998), Rhoads & Valadez (1996), Shaw, Valadez, & Rhoads (1999), and Barbatis (2010) all base their work on critical theory, examining how race, class, gender, socioeconomic status, education, religion, and sexual orientation impact college students. Still, this type of study is not as common in the literature as quantitative studies. A look at recent articles in the Journal of Developmental Education shows an emphasis in the research on Ideas in Practice, Strategies for Improving Student Learning, and Techtalk issues. Research in the Journal of Basic Writing combines classroom advice with policy discussions. Articles in Teaching English in the Two-Year College focus primarily on issues in teaching writing and regularly offers a What Works for Me section. The bulk of the work in the sociology of education focuses on K-12 issues. Close studies of community college classrooms often focus on cultural issues in urban colleges. Very little research has been done on first levels of developmental writing in a Midwestern community college. Because of the increased pressure to show positive results in developmental education, a good deal of research is based on accelerating developmental coursework. Quantitative data show that the more exit points a developmental student must go through (the more classes

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

they need to take), the more likely he or she will discontinue the sequence and drop out of college (Hern &deWit, 2010; Jenkins, Speroni, Belfield, Smith Jaggars, & Edgecombe, 2010). Accelerated programs vary, where some programs combine two or more developmental levels into one, while other programs place students directly into college-level writing while offering additional lab support. Results are positive for many students, but no matter the program, there are a certain number of students who are not successful, no matter the model used. (Hern & deWit, 2010; Jenkins, Speroni, Belfield, Smith Jaggars, & Edgecombe, 2010). I am interested in those outliers, the students who are not successful, no matter the program or curriculum. I see my own research as informed by both Bourdieus theory of cultural capital (knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to certain settings) and narrative inquiry, as described by Connelly and Clandinin (1990): education is construction and reconstruction of personal and social stories; teachers and learners are storytellers and characters in their own and others stories (p. 2). A major issue in teaching developmental writing is the mismatch between teacher expectations of student experiences and actual student backgrounds. Lareau, 2003; Gorman, 1998; and Willis, 1981 study the background of poor and working class students, but the focus on each is before the college level. The work, though, gives insight into cultural reasons why students from poor and working class backgrounds often struggle once they reach college. Lareaus (2003) description of the difference between the middle classs concerted cultivation vs. the poor and working classs accomplishment of natural growth shows how middle-class parents have become nearly obsessive in their desire for upward mobility for their children, having their children spend hours in outside activities to prepare them for college and future success. Lareau (2003) favors

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

the poor and working-class approach of letting children grow more naturally. However, culturally, poor and working-class students may have a difficult time once they reach college since they have not have had the same kinds of experiences many middle-class professors will expect them to have had. Lareau (2003) states that her book identifies the largely invisible but powerful ways that parents social class impacts childrens life experiences (p. 3). The stories she tells of the childrens lives illustrate her points in ways that statistics could never do. Likewise, the voices of those interviewed in Gormans (1998) study illustrate the hidden injuries of class. For example, a working-class man that Gorman (1998) interviewed says: Ive walked into banks before and your yuppies look at you like youre the scum of the earth. I might be dirty. I said that to one of them. Hes standing there in his suit, looking all pretty and shit. Hes looking at me like Im a piece of scumI said there is nothing wrong with an honest days work (pp. 24-25). For many in the middle-class, the divide between the middle-class and the poor and working-class is invisible. As a middle-class instructor, I spent many years unaware of differences between middle-class and poor and working class attitudes. I am sure that I had had many poor and working-class students before I started discussing social issues in my classroom, but I was not as likely as sensitive to their backgrounds as I could have been. hooks (2000) writes about her difficult transition from a poor background to college life with those from privileged backgrounds. In her first college experience at an all girls college, hooks (2000) describes the other women as aliens: We did not reside on the same planet (p. 26). When she transferred to Stanford, she still felt like she was an outsider, never having

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

10

experienced travel on an airplane, bus, subway, or escalator. While her classmates went on ski trips for vacations, she would have to find a place to stay during breaks, not being able to afford fancy trips or even a trip back home. One break she went home with a cleaning lady from the college (p. 34). Most college instructors and professors either have come from privileged backgrounds or have come from schooling experiences positive enough that they have continued their education through graduate school and now want to continue a life focused on school. Students who find themselves in a community college developmental writing classroom, though, are not likely to have come from a similar background as their instructors. A single classroom might have students whose first language is not English, students from poor and working-class backgrounds, students who have learning disabilities, and students who have experienced little success with (and have little love for) school. Nieto (1999) writes: Students are the people most affected by school policies and practices, but they tend to be the least consulted about them (p. 179). Students in developmental classes are often on the margins of a college or university, their voices and stories unheard. Understanding their stories can help inform curriculum and instructor practices.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

11

References Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 145, 11-30. Bailey, T. & Cho, S. (2010). Developmental education in community colleges. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Barbatis, P. (2010). Underprepared, ethnically diverse community college students: Factors contributing to persistence. Journal of Developmental Education, 33 (3), 14-24. Bartholomae, D. (2005). Writing on the margins: Essays on composition and teaching. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In A.R. Sadovnik, Sociology of education: A critical reader (2nd Edition). New York: Routledge, 83-95. Connelly, F.M. & Clandinin, D.J. (1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-14. Gorman, T. (1998). Social class and parental attitudes toward education: Resistance and conformity to schooling in the family. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 27(10), 1044. Herideen, P. (1998). Policy, pedagogy, and social inequality: Community college student realities in post-industrial America. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. hooks, b. (2000). Where we stand: Class matters. New York and London: Routledge.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

12

Hern, K. & deWit, T. (2010). Accelerating students progress through college-level English and math: restructuring curricula and reducing the length of developmental sequences. Faculty Inquiry Network. Retrieved from http://fincommons.net/wpcontent/uploads/2010/02/Acceleration-AtD.pdfHorner, B. & Lu, M.Z. (1999). Representing the other: Basic writing and the teaching of basic writing. Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English. Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Belfield, C., Smith Jaggers, S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for accelerating academic success of community college remedial English students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) effective and affordable? New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. McNenny, G. (2001). Mainstreaming basic writers: Politics and pedagogies of access. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mutnick, D. (1996). Writing in an alien world: Basic writing and the struggle for equality in higher education. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers. Nieto (1999). Critical multicultural education and students perspectives. In Ladson-Billings, G. & Gillborn, D. (Eds.) (2004). The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Multicultural Education. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 179-200. Rhoads, R.A. & Valadez, J.R. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community college. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

DEVELOPMENTAL WRITING AND THE LITERATURE

13

Shaugnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York: Oxford UP. Shaw, K., Valadez, J., & Rhoads, R. (1999). Community colleges as cultural texts. Albany: State University of New York Press. Willis, P. (1981). Elements of culture. In Arum, R., Beattie, I.R., & Ford, K. (Eds.). The structure of schooling: Readings in the sociology of education (2nd Edition) (pp. 228-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press/Safe Publications.