• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Successful Programs

‹ Systems of placement | Writing Placement | Research findings ›

There are a number of college writing-placement programs that can claim better than usual success. Much can be learned from them, especially if one keeps in mind the axiom that what works in one place may not work in another, that even the best placement designs need to be adapted to fit local conditions. But five methods have more generalizability than others in that they have been applied with good results across a variety of sites:

Everywhere writing placement can be bettered, made more adequate to its purposes, if those purposes are kept in mind and if innovation and modification of existing programs are welcomed. Here are a few useful accounts, most with some formal validation.

Ball State University: Hanson, Linda K. (1996). Explains a system where a formula places the great majority of students, but some six percent, mainly non-traditional students, are placed by a portfolio of writings.

Belmont University: Pinter, Robbie; Ellen Sims (2003). With directed self-placement, they found that enrollment rose in an ancillary course to regular composition.

City University of New York, City College: Janger, Matthew (1997). Validates by means of retention and progress toward degree an experiment in mainstreaming, where some students, regardless of how they had been placed, took a two-semester, non-trackeded collegel-level writing sequence.

Colgate University: Howard, Rebecca Moore (2000). Entering students who declared themselves “not yet prepared for college reading and writing” were encouraged to enroll in a summer preparatory course.

De Pauw University: Cornell, Cynthia E.; Robert D. Newton (2003). Includes useful information about student satisfaction with the process of self-placement, including the feelings of at-risk students.

Grand Valley State University: Royer, Daniel J.; Roger Gilles (1998). Students do not write a placement exam, but rather are informed about courses and then choose on their own. For descriptions of applications of directed self-placement at other institutions, see Daniel Royer; Roger Gilles (Eds.) (2003).

Miami University [Ohio]: Daiker, Donald A; Jeff Sommers; Gail Stygall (1996). One of the best know and better studied applications of placement by portfolio, which are carefully defined and constructed with the help of high-school teachers. See also Black, Laurel; Donald A. Daiker; Jeffrey Sommers; Gail Stygal (1992).

Missouri Western State College: Frick, Jane: Karen Fulton (1991). Describes modifications to the administration and reading of essays by faculty that improved inter-rater reliability and placement adequacy.

Southern Illinois State University: Blakesley, David (2002). Careful validation of their version of directed self-placement. See also Blakesley, David; Erin J. Harvey; Erica J. Reynolds (2003).

St. John Fisher College: Nicolay, Theresa Freda (2002). They eliminated basic writing and the use of a standardized placement test, and instead relied upon an essay written at the third week of the semester. At-rish writers were assigned writing-center work and one-on-one conferences with teachers.

State University of New York, Stony Brook: Robertson, Alice (1994). During summer orientation the placement test is run first as a class with a teacher, pre-writing exercises, and discussion with other students over the topic.

University of Arizona: Hindman, Jane E. (1994). Once in the course students study the examination that placed them there, looking at the criteria teacher-raters used, even scoring the essays themselves, thus turning a testing process into a learning one. See also McKendy (1990).

University of Louisville: Huot, Brian (1994). Students can submit a portfolio of high-school writings, read by university instructors, but also take the ACT; if placement differs, students choose which one they want. See also Huot, Brian (2002), pp. 156–163, and Lowe, Teres J; Brian Huot (1997).

University of Michigan: Willard-Traub, Margaret; Emily Decker; Rebecca Reed; Jerome Johnston (1999). One of the first large universities to attempt placement of students through scrutiny of a portfolio of their work. See also Clark, Michael (1983) for an account of the benefits of teachers reading placement essays.

University of Pittsburgh: Smith, William L. (1993). Detailed analysis of the way changes in teacher scoring of placement essays improved the students’ chances in the courses.

University of South Carolina: Grego, Rhonda C.; Nancy S. Thompson (1995). The university phased out basic writing and hence placement and met the needs of students struggling in regular composition with a “writing studio,” where students meet in groups to share problem and discuss solutions. See also Grego, Rhonda C.; Nancy S. Thompson (1996).

Washington State University: Haswell, Richard H.; Susan Wyche-Smith (1994). Students are placed on the basis of two essays, one a post-write piece, and teachers make placement decisions on this abridged portfolio by means of an especially efficient system in which obvious regular-course placements are read only once (and at-risk students are assigned the regular course plus an additional hour in a writing-center tutorial course). See also Haswell, Richard H.; Susan Wyche-Smith (1996).

Yale University: Hackman and Johnson (1981). Sent students their scores and the averages score on national tests and allowed them to place themselves.

‹ Systems of placement | Writing Placement | Research findings ›