|
|
Collaborative Practices
|
Course Structure-MainstreamMainstreaming is easily the most discussed and contested option for dealing with basic writers and their work. For some, like Judith Rodby [internal link to corresponding citation], mainstreaming is the answer to the institutionally nostalgic status of non-credited basic writing courses. For others, such as Keith Gilyard, who is admittedly unwilling to make “blanket endorsements” of basic writing programs, mainstreaming should be favored when it is institutionally and contextually appropriate and is able to support and enhance critical practice. And for instructors and administrators represented by Mary Soliday and Barbara Gleason, mainstreaming is an answer to the weaknesses in remedial education and the strengthening of a commitment to open admission students. Entitled the “enrichment approach,” Soliday and Gleason’s mainstreaming project does away with basic writing courses through the elimination of test scores and the enrollment of all students into a two-semester, six credit composition course. The students enrolled in the mainstreamed composition course are left to “address deficiencies in their writing through their own initiative in the Writing Center or use other tutoring options (including increased one-on-one help from professors in conferences” (37). City College of New York City College of New York is a great example of mainstreaming. They traditionally had students who took English 110, “First Year Writing” and students who scored lower on placement tests and were placed into “Basic Writing 1″ or “Basic Writing 2.” In an effort to mainstream, City College of New York enrolled students from both “Basic Writing 1 and 2″ into a two semester writing class. These students were allowed to bypass the remedial classes and were given help in the mainstream English 110 classes. Second language students received assistance from classroom tutors who also tried to provide an engaging curriculum for these students. http://www1.ccny.cuny.edu/CCNYBulletin/upload/2005_07_UGraduateBulletin.PDF Bibliography Gilyard, Keith. “Basic Writing, Cost Effectiveness, and Ideology.” Journal of Basic Writing 19.1 (2000): 36–42.
Gilyard revisits the debate over the possibility of eliminating developmental courses such as basic writing in four-year institutions. Gilyard argues for moving beyond what many consider to be the “either/or” dilemma.
Gleason, Barbara. “Evaluating Writing Programs in Real Time: The Politics of Remediation.” College Composition and Communication. 51.4 (2000): 560–588.
This text is a case study of the evaluation of a pilot-project in mainstreaming basic writers at City College of New York. The study reflects the social and political contexts that need to be considered in the earliest stages of evaluation.
Lalicker, William B. “A Basic Introduction to Basic Writing Program Structures: A Baseline and Five Alternatives.” BWe: Basic Writing e-Journal 1.2 (1999). 7 Jan. 2007. <www.asu.edu/clas/english/composition/cbw/bwe_fall_1999.htm#bill>.
Lalicker describes a brief survey that was conducted via the Writing Program Administrators listserv, asking respondents to identify their basic writing program as approximating one of five models. Respondents also provided insight into advantages and disadvantages of each model.
Rodby, Judith. “What’s It Worth and What’s It For? Revisions to Basic Writing Revisited.” College Composition and Communication. 47.1 (1996): 107–111.
Rodby focuses on the efforts and complications involved in the reconfiguration of instruction of basic writers at California State University, Chico. Because of the stigmas and limitations attached to the category of “basic writing,” administrators and teachers decided to mainstream these students. Rodby discusses two predominant issues opposing this effort that suggest that the slotting of basic writers is largely political in nature.
Soliday, Mary. “From the Margins to the Mainstream: Re-conceiving Remediation.” College Composition and Communication. 47.1 (1996): 85–100.
Soliday describes the development of a basic writing student, Derek, who participated in a pilot project designed to promote a version of mainstreaming while supporting the goals of open admissions.
|