' AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT *F-RESHMAN ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GORDON LEWIS HOLLAND 1970 ' LIBRARl Michigan State University (Hum: This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FRESHMAN ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION presented by Gordon Lewis Holland has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for I’ll-D. degree in Education / ,7 Major professor / Date ”2 /’§//7O / 0-169 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FRESHL'IAN ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY Gordon Lewis Holland The study sought to determine and describe current trends in the teaching of freshman English as found in the colleges and universities of the United States, and to use that description to formulate a series of recommended improvements, to identify areas worthy of further study, and to serve as the basis for generating a lengthy list of onclusions which identify current procedures within the subject under study. A nine page questionnaire-—circulated to two hundred college or university English departments throughout the country--resulted in realization of one hundred and sixty reSponses to a total questionnaire return of exactly eighty percent. Data gathered from this source was descriptive of the major factors concerning individual policies and practices related to freshman English. Findings indicated a wide degree of variation between individual freshman English programs, a failure to imple— ment current instructional develOpment practices, and a great contrast between what is too often reported as happening in freshman English as opposed to what is actually taking place. Gordon Lewis Holland The study reveals freshman English for the confused 'beast' that it is. Institutions are unable and/or unwilling to determine whether or not the program is needed. They certainly have not identified the basic nature of the subject to the point that one can correctly state what freshman English is and is not. There is little or no agreement as to how the subject should be taught or what it should be labelled. In keeping with this general state of uncertainty is the observation that there is lack of agreement concerning who should teach freshman English, to whom it should be taught, for what duration it should be taught, and at what point in a student's academic career it should be taught. Failure to utilize instructional deveIOpment prac- tices wisely is seen in a general lack of eXperimentation and a gross neglect of principles of scientific evaluation, fostered in part by lack of training in such matters and in part by an unwillingness to seek the assistance of experts outside the English department. The most graphic illustrations of this general lack of prOper instructional develOpment may be seen in the failure to utilize newer media, a desire for but inability to obtain federal grants, and in the narrowness in training directors of freshman English programs. The study also reveals that many commonly circulated statements about the current status of freshman English are often unfounded in fact. Primary of these current Gordon Lewis Holland misconceptions is the belief that many institutions are abolishing their freshman English or composition programs, a claim not borne out by this study. Included here are eighty-six conclusions regarding current trends in freshman English drawn directly from the study. They involve such matters as abolition of freshman English, putting the subject on an Optional basis, and sources of revenue for program development. Other areas included relate to course content, student load, program guidance, and general inner-departmental procedures. Recommendations include both those originating in professional literature and supported by the findings of the study, and those originating with the study itself. The twenty—seven recommendations presented call for application of professional instructional develOpment practices to freshman English programs (among other things). These recommendations deal with course objectives, experimentation, evaluation, staffing, training, finances, syllabus preparation and usage, leadership, waiver policies, and remedial programs. The writer has indicated twenty areas recommended for further study. These recommendations for further study call for more investigation into the rationale behind freshman English procedures. Other areas included here are budget, faculty attitude toward teaching freshman English, acceptance and application of newer media, training of freshman English faculty, as well as other matters similarly u. Gordon Lewis Holland related to instructional develOpment of freshman English programs. The strength of the study is no doubt in the data gathered. The overwhelming reception to so extensive a questionnaire has been most gratifying and has provided a great deal of Specific information, for it was from this source that the writer took guidance in formulating his recommendations and conclusions. A further indication of the worth of the data is seen in the number of requests for c0pies of at least portions of it. Many such requests have come from individual institutions and from interested agencies. AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT FRESHHAN ENGLISH PROGRAMS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY Gordon Lewis Holland A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1970 .gfgg793 7~/~>o ACKN OTI-TLEDGI-EENTS The writer wishes to thank the chairman of his doctoral committee, Dr. James Page, for considerate counsel and assistance rendered during the preparation of this dissertation. Appreciation is also eXpressed to the other committee members, Dr. Dale Alam, and especially to Dr. James Pickering whose assistance during the early stages of the study was invaluable. ii Dissertation: VI TA Gordon Lewis Holland Candidate for the degree of Doctor of PhilOSOphy An Analysis of Current Freshman English Programs In Institutions of Higher Education Outline of Studies: Major: Instructional DeveIOpment Cognate: English Biographical Items: Experience: Membership: Born: July 7, 1938 Undergraduate Studies: Northern Montana College, Havre, Montana, June 1961 to June 1964. B.S. in Education with English and Social Science majors. Graduate Studies: Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, Sept. 1964 to June 1966. M.A. in English. Graduate Teaching Assistant (English) Purdue University, Sept. 1964 to June 1966. Instructor of English, Northern Montana College, Sept. 1966 to Aug. 1968. 6-8 Media Institute, Michigan State Univer— sity, Sept. 1968 to Aug. 1969. Assistant Professor of English, Northern Montana College, Sept. 1969 to June 1970. Modern Language Association of America Linguistic Association of America Phi Delta Kappa American Association of University Professors iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION............................... 1 Purpose of the Study..................... 1 Limitations of the Study................. 2 Sources.................................. 4 Justification............................ 6 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............... 11 Introduction............................. 11 Body of the Review....................... 13 Summary.................................. 74 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE.................. 76 The Questionnaire Technique.............. 76 The Instrument........................... 79 IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA....................... 81 Group One................................ 81 Group Two................................ 102 Group Three.............................. 123 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............ 147 Conclusions.............................. 147 Recommendations.......................... 159 Recommendations for Further Study........ 164 BIBLIOGRAPHYOO0.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOO 167 iv Appendix A LIST OF APPENDICES Page A listing of those institutions in group one and designation of those which replied to the questionnaire.......... 174 A listing of those institution in group two and designation of those which replied to the questionnaire.......... 178 A COpy of the first cover letter mailed with questionnaires posted OCtOber10......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOI...0...... 182 A copy of the second cover letter used during the second mailing of the questionnaire on October l7............. 184 A sample questionnaire complete with the final totals from institutions in group oneOOOOIOIOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. 186 A sample questionnaire complete with the final totals from institutions in group tV.]O..OOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... ..... .0. 196 A sample questionnaire complete with the final combined totals from institutions in groups one and two.......... 206 An analysis of the total respondents inso— far as number, completeness, and reasons for lack of completeness are concerned...... 216 Duplication of Kitzhaber's chart regarding rate of errors per one thousand words of writing by college freshmen, SOphomores, and seniors..................... 217 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study We live in changing times. The maturing of our society, the scientific bent of contemporary thought, and the advent of mass education in college are producing changes in our public, in our students, and in ourselves. Languages and literature may well be the most constant elements in a society, yet they are as various and mutable as life itself. "English" could not stand still, even if it wanted to. Ours, then, is the age old problem of an institution: that of trying to hold on to traditional values while adapting to a new situation. (Fisher, p. 11) It is the purpose of this study to conduct an investi— gation of current national trends in the teaching of freshman English in colleges and universities. It attempts to describe freshman English programs as they are "adapting to a new situation." Impetus for the study is found in comments such as the following: Greater provision needs to be made for studying at a national level the experiments in English and the humanities which are already underway in various places. Careful evaluation of such programs by impartial observers and dissemina- tion of results might prove especially fruitful. Too often, inadequate provisions are made for evaluating eXperimental projects, and the results (both negative and affirmative) remain unknown. (Squire, p. 8) While reporting on and describing the current state of freshman English programs at a national level, the study attempts to identify strengths and weaknesses within these programs, presenting this evaluation in Chapter V. The writer of the study is full cognizant of the fact that a single report cannot be eXpected to describe each and every aspect of freshman English programs in colleges and universities in the United States. In light of this fact, the writer has established a list of the major aspects which will be handled in the study. Those aspects which will receive particular emphasis in the study include: 1. presence or absence of tested hypothesis as rationale for the respective programs. 2. class size and program length. 3. types of materials used in the classroom. 4. instructors' teaching loads, their education, eXperience, and ranking. 5. program waiver policies. 6. prOpensity to change the program. 7. uses of the program director, his degree of involvement, and his education and eXperience. 8. Opportunity for undergraduate follow-up courses of a similar but advanced nature. 9. attitude toward federal funds for program improvement. 10. forecasts of future trends. Limitations of the Study All research is capable of being conditioned to some degree by limitations imposed on it. This study is no exception. It is subject to the following limitations: 1. As the study included a questionnaire sent to a representative number of institutions, there was the unpredictable limitation in number of returns. While the writer made every effort reasonable to make a high return u—I of questionnaires likely, he realized that this limitation existed, demanding that he be alert to the make—up of the final sample in terms of type, size, and locality. 2. There is a certain limitation regarding the respon— dents. The writer had to be concerned with the reSpondents insofar as determining to what extent they could speak for their respective institutions. It was assumed, however, that respondents would be directors of freshman English programs and that in the matter under study they would be more able than any other person to Speak for their reSpec- tive institutions. 3. The questionnaire technique itself creates limitations, the extent of which is determined by the quality of the survey instrument. The writer attempted to keep these questionnaire—produced limitations at a minimum by striving to develOp an instrument which is clear and concise, sufficiently objective, and free from wording ‘which.would unintentionally lead respondents to give biased answers. 4. Another limitation developed during the tabulation (If reSponses when the writer had to interpret the data atxxording to his own discrimination, judgement, and eXperience. 5. The study also includes the limitation represented by tflue respondents themselves. Their responses are somewhat affensted by their professional prejudices, their vested interests, and the degree to which they are interested in the subject. 4.. n‘ 6. The type and number of institutions to be surveyed were limited by the investigator. Each institution con- tacted had to meet the following initial conditions: 1. each institution must offer at least the baccalaureate degree in teacher training and/or Liberal Arts. 2. each institution must be accredited by one of the six regional accrediting agencies in the United States. 7. The final limitation of the study concerns the time at which the freshman English programs were offered. For the sake of this study, freshman English programs investi- gated were limited to those which were in effect during the school year beginning September of 1968 and ending in August of 1969. Sources Data for this study was gathered in two ways. The first method used was the securing of data through a survey of existing literature pertinent to the study. The second method of data generation was through implementation of the questionnaire-survey technique. The survey of the literature pertinent to the study was accomplished through investigation of what could be called major and minor sources. The major sources of data within the survey of existing literature were publications of associations directly involved with the subject under study. Included in this group are "The Publication of the LModern Language Association," publications from the National Council of Teachers of English, publications from the Curriculum Center in English, and existing dissertations and theses in the field. The minor sources of data within the survey of existing literature came from investigation of publications which include material of use here but which are not limited solely to the subject under study. Chief among these sources are the Educational Resources Information Center microfilms which provided information on pertinent articles, studies, and volumes directly or indirectly associated with the objective of this study. A summary of existing literature pertinent to the study appears as Chapter II of this work. The second method of data generation for the study—- use of the questionnaire—survey technique——provided the most useful and directly usable data. Information gained from the survey of institutions was more closely associated with the objectives of this study and was more contemporary than that information secured through investigation of existing literature. Each of the two hundred colleges and universities which received the questionnaire met the criteria previously established under limitation six. Also, the institutions surveyed were randomly selected from the total number of institutions which fall into two general categories. One hundred institutions were chosen from each of the following: 1. teacher training and/or Liberal Arts institutions which offer only the baccalaureate degree. 2. teacher training and/or Liberal Arts institutions which offer the Masters degree and/or Masters and Doctorate. . ~ - Justification There is an uneasy suspicion among those who teach freshman English that much of [their] success occurs in spite of rather than because of the organization and content of the course. Particularly in recent years directors and teachers of freshman English have been sub— jecting themselves to self-analysis and self— castigation. They have discovered paradoxes and contradictions at every turn. (Gorrell, p. 93) As pointed out by Gorrell, freshman English teachers and directors are beginning to take a closer look at what they are doing. They are wondering which methods are best, and they are seeking answers to questions which they had previously failed to ask. Much of the current investi- gation of freshman English practices-—as is also the case in many other academic areas--is fostered to a great extent by a new situation, namely great increases in enrollment. The number of students seeking instruction has increased greatly while the number of instructors has not. Colleges and universities, only just beginning to feel the impact of the swollen enrollments which have overwhelmed elementary and secondary schools for a decade, are becoming increasingly concerned about the eXpected shortage of well—educated college teachers of English in future years. (Special Studies, p. 2) While student numbers increase and concern over an eXpected shortage of English teachers grows, the acquisition 1. \ 27 Rejection of the highly literature-based freshman course is seen in the English Department's brochure to entering freshmen at the University of Southern California. The freshmen are informed that, "In this one semester English 101 required course, the English Composition Committee has deemed it both wise and practical to have you concentrate on the practice of writing, as done both by professional writers and by you yourself, rather than on the subject matters of philOSOphy, literature, sociology, politics, current events, or what have you" (Nelson, College, p. 3). Still another function of the freshman English course is noted in the report from Ohio State University, one of many institutions which include reading improvement as a goal of the freshman sequence. "The primary purpose of English 101 is to improve the students' skill in writing expository prose; the secondary--and ancillary-~purpose of the course is to improve the students' skill in reading" (Nelson, College, p. 4). Study of literary types is the backbone of many freshman English programs, including that of Marquette University where, "The aim of English 1 is to develOp in the student a skill in the reading, analysis, appreciation and evaluation of two literary types (the short story and the novel) and also the skill of writing clear and effec- tive eXpository prose which in content and form is considered at the level eXpected of a college student" (Nelson, College, p» 4). vs I 28 Leaving institutions' Specific objectives, Nelson, in the same report, comments on a number of current trends in freshman English courses across the country. The earlier part of Nelson's report showed lack of agreement as to just what the function of freshman English is, yet out of this state of affairs comes some homogeneity. "Emerging from the confusion, however, are three major concepts of the com— position course, supported by practical, 'old liberal', and 'new liberal' arguments," (Nelson, College, p. 4). Nelson describes each of the three major concepts as follows: The practical or 'service' concept argues that the course remedies poor high school training and provides needed instruction to students whose lack of writing skills will hamper them in all courses. According to this view, [the old liberal] the primary purpose of the course is to teach fundamental principles of clear thinking and effecting writing and to provide Opportunities for the student to improve his skills in these areas. The 'new liberal' concept of the composition course emphasizes both the student's'growth in imaginative, intellectual and linguistic power' on 'the process involved in such everyday activities as talking and thinking things over.‘ (Nelson, College, pp. 4-5) Nelson follows her course descriptions with a report from one university regarding a matter which is highly relevant to freshman English programs at larger univer- sities, namely the graduate assistant situation. Using Duquesne University's study in this matter, Nelson presents an evaluation of the reasons behind one institution's decision to continue the practice of using graduate 29 assistants to handle the bulk of freshman English courses. Duquesne had seventeen teaching assistants and one research assistant at the time of the study. The study group found that the average cost per section was five hundred and thirty dollars. If the existing system were drOpped, one of four alternatives would have to be used, according to the study group. The alternatives were: 1. the present staff would take over those classes presently taught by the assistants. 2. the department would hire replacement faculty at the lowest paid academic rank. 3. team-teaching would be employed. 4. any combination of the first three would be adOpted. The first alternative was dismissed as being impractical as it would overload existing faculty members. Alternative two was ruled out when it was determined that it would increase department costs by at least twenty—two thousand dollars per academic year. The team-teaching alternative was rejected by the committee as simply inadequate. The decision was made to keep the graduate assistant program in force but with certain modifications, foremost Of which was to be an attempt to attract larger numbers of superior candidates. This up-grading of candidates was to be accomplished through revision of the graduate assistantship announcements, requiring prospective candi— dates to submit a sample of their writing along with their appdications, and requiring a personal interview where at all possible (Nelson, College, pp. 19-25). 30 Moving to Nelson's reports on programs at specific institutions of higher learning, one can identify trends which seem fairly well established and one can identify innovative practices which are not as yet standard proce- dure with many schools. One of the current trends which is seen with some degree of regularity is the practice of allowing entering freshmen to choose one or two courses from a substantial list of courses rather than the manda- tory sequence in composition. An example of an institution which allows freshmen a choice of courses to satisfy the freshman English require— ment is Washington University. One should be aware that the choices given by Washington University are typical of free-choice programs in that few of the courses included are ones which place emphasis on writing as such. The course titles indicate the breadth of choice freshmen at Washington University have. Traditions of Western Literature Autobiography Heroes and Anti-Heroes EXperience and Expression (emphasis on writing) Innocence and EXperience in Literature American Literature and Values Introduction to the Drama The Epic Satire An Introduction to the Reading of Poetry (Nelson, College, pp. 40-42) A common variation of the free-choice of courses to satisfy the freshman English requirement is to make one or more courses mandatory then allow the student to choose freely from a list of other courses which will satisfy the 31 total requirement. The State University of New York at Buffalo uses this mandatory-courses—plus-free-choice-courses system. Freshmen at that institution are required to take at least one semester of courses titled: Analytic Writing Reading and Writing Writing About EXperience The remainder of the freshman English requirement is made up of courses selected from a list of fifteen, a list which for the most part parallels that of Washington University (Nelson, Buffalo, pp. 1-8). Freshman English programs, whether they offer free choice of courses or not, may or may not be products of outside influence. An example of a freshman English program designed to meet the pressures of persons outside the English department is that of the University of Hawaii. The main purpose of the program at that institution is to meet stated needs of others. A representative of that English department claims that their program aims to serve "...the purpose that the deans of the various colleges expect us to achieve--to help students learn to write good English expository prose" (Nelson, Hawaii, p. 14). To achieve their desired end, the English Department of the University of Hawaii is deliberate in selection of staff. "The staff of freshman English consists almost entirely of full-time instructors. Only a few are taught by graduate assistants, all of whom work under close supervision. A few sections are taught by assistant a. ‘- . .I u a.* 7“?!“ ‘0.- Vi i (a. 32 professors" (Nelson, Hawaii, p. 68). And in a further attempt to attain quality instruction in their freshman program, the University of Hawaii prepares a fifty page syllabus for the first semester. Control is relatively rigid, except that individual class assignments and readings are not set forth in detail. Also, despite the huge first semester syllabus, new staff members go through orientation before classes start in the fall, an orientation period which extends into the first two weeks of the semester. After that time, staff meetings are held approximately every two weeks (Nelson, Hawaii, p. 69). Communications as the basis for freshman English pro- grams is common enough,a1though not as common as it once was. Columbia Basin College is one of the institutions which still uses the Communications basis. Their freshman program "...includes study of basic language skills and analysis of public media" (Nelson, Tglgg, p. 14). The same program boasts still another practice which is gaining support across the country--multiple tracking. At Columbia Basin the freshmen are put into one of three tracks as a result of their performance on the Washington Pre-College Test. A diagnostic essay is given during the first week of classes to allow discovery of any obvious misplacements within the program (Nelson, Tglga, p. 13). Western State College of Colorado also stresses Communications in its freshman English program. The major difference between this program and that of the Columbia .' 33 Basin is that Western emphasizes oral communication (Nelson, Tglgg, p. 38). Junior college first year English programs could well offer insights into current trends; however, such is not usually the case as their programs tend to be somewhat traditional. This contention is backed up by Bonnie Nelson's study of freshman English at fourteen two-year colleges. Nelson found all fourteen two-year college programs fairly traditional, offering no surprises as such. Most of them use a two track system, with one track for terminal students and one for transfers-to-be. However, a few points brought up by Nelson are worthy of mention if for no other reason than to Show the general type of thing being done in freshman English at junior colleges. For example, Amarillo College grants about twenty percent advanced standing as a result of pre-testing. Teachers there are responsible for as many as five sections of twenty students each, with ten themes a semester (Nelson, Fourteen, pp. 1-41). This high student-load is not an occurence unique to Amarillo and may be found in many junior colleges across the country. According to eXperts in the field, teachers with so many students in a composition program can hardly be eXpected to do their best. Not at all typical of the too infrequent attempt to bring innovation to freshman English programs is that work being done by the University of Kentucky where innovations 34 already in effect are seen in the following from their director of freshman English: 1. Departmental Final Examination: all students are required to take the departmental final examination at the end of the first semester's course. Those receiving an E receive this grade for the course unless the student's instructor appeals for a review of the final and all written work. One other matter about the departmental final: it is graded by some- one other than the student's regular teacher. In addition, eXperienced staff members grade the papers of students taught by graduate students who are teaching for the first time. 2. Student Profile Forms: all students have at least three conferences with their instructors. At the end of each conference, the instructor completes a student profile form to indicate the student's weaknesses and to make certain that at least some of the conference time is devoted to a review of the student's writing. 3. Statement of Standards: this statement has been develOped to promote some uniformity in grading. In addition, next year I plan to circulate a theme every week and to follow it several days later with a detailed analysis and evaluation of it. 4. Next fall I will begin a team teaching television eXperiment in Freshman English. During the summer I plan to make a series of fifteen minute video tapes and to write a teachers' guides for them. This material will be used by graduate assistants, who will follow my television presentation with a thirty-five minute planned discussion of the points made. (Nelson, Kentucky, p. 22) As the student at Ohio State progresses through the two courses in the freshman English sequence, he is brought into contact with other objectives and other methods including argumentative and persuasive prose, and eXpository writing based on assigned readings for poetry, drama, and short fiction. One other aspect of Ohio State's program warrants 35 mention and that is the realization on the part of the program directors that too many teachers have a tendency to become more involved with the literature they assign than they are with the teaching of composition which is their first objective. In an effort to counteract this center-on-the-literature tendency, that institution's freshman English faculty is provided with a detailed syllabus which goes into length in suggesting ways in which literature can be used prOperly and effectively to assist in the instruction of composition (Nelson, Kentucky, p. 47). The freshman English program at Purdue University serves as a good example of an institution's faculty being utilized to the maximum. The Purdue program calls for at least fifteen themes per semester. The concentra- tion in the themes is on logical and rhetorical problems in writing discursive essays during the second term, preceded by a first semester emphasis on expository writing and personal eXperience (Nelson, Kentucky, pp. 60-64). Purdue offers at least two avenues of advanced placement. If a student receives a grade of "A" in the first semester, he may obtain approval for taking an English literature elective instead of the normal second semester freshman course (Nelson, Kentucky, p. 60). Also, the Purdue English department clearly spells out another method of attaining advanced standing. The following 36 statement is part of that institution's prepared handout for entering freshmen. If you have indicated superior writing ability by your high school achievement and your score on the verbal section of the College Entrance Examination, you will be assigned directly to English 103. If you receive a grade of C or better, you will be given an additional three credits for English 101 and excused from English 102. If you are an English major, you will be required to take English 103. However you may be first assigned to English 101 and 102, as prerequisites, depending on your preparation and ability. (Nelson, Kentucky, p. 65) The traditional freshman English course requires one full academic year to complete. However, some institutions have cut that requirement back to only one term while others have increased it to two academic years. The latter approach was taken by Southern Illinois University at Carbondale where the freshman English program has been replaced by a freshman-SOphomore sequence called General Studies in English. Students at Southern Illinois are requested to complete three composition courses during their freshman year, to be followed by four literature courses their SOphomore year (Nelson, Kentucky, p. 67). Like Purdue, Southern Illinois has a liberal exemption policy which allows able students to by-pass much of the standard first year requirement. The first of a three-quarter composition sequence, 101 is required of all students scoring below the seventieth percentile in English on the ACT Test. 37 Students who rank from 70 to 89% on the ACT scores are exempted from the first quarter and assigned to the second. Students who rank from 90 to 100% on the ACT scores are exempted from the first two quarters and assigned to the third course. (Nelson, Kentucky, pp. 70—79) Particularly unique with the Southern Illinois fresh- man English program is a rule regarding in-service training for the instructors involved. "All new teaching assistants and instructors without teaching eXperience at the college level are required to enroll in English 585, which meets each Wednesday from 305. All new junior staff nembers are required to audit the course" (Nelson, Kentucky, p.92). The idea of requiring new faculty members to take a regularly schedule course is quite innovative and deserves consideration by other institution's English departments. Such a course would be eSpecially beneficial where no other in-service training is offered on a regular basis. Strict adherence to a constant theme during a freshman English course is exemplified by the program at Augustana College. There the emphasis in freshman English is "...on the craft of writing, on clear and effective thought and eXpression," and “the course will now focus on a central t0pic, 'The Measure of Man.‘ During the first semester students in Freshman English will read, hear and write about the ways in which man seeks to identify himself" (Nelson, Seven, p. l). 38 The staggered year approach to freshman English is pOpular in the form employed at Central Washington State College. There the freshman English requirement in com— position is Spread out over three years. One quarter of SOphomore composition is required, as is one quarter of composition in the junior year (Nelson, Sgygg, p. 2). While most freshman English programs call for the students to write a research paper--either a controlled source paper or a library paper--King's College has made it standard practice to require both types of their fresh- men. In the first term the students write a controlled source paper, and in the second term they write the library paper (Nelson, Sgygn, p. 30). One can readily see the advantage of the King's College requirement. Students there work with controlled sources as novices then move to the library to concentrate on research proce— dures once they have mastered the mechanics of writing research papers. Another system for handling freshman composition classes is the lecture-tutorial method such as that employed by Bob Jones University. The Freshman English program at Bob Jones University uses a lecture-tutorial system of large lecture classes (from 120 to 180 students) and small tutorials (approxi- mately 15 students). The large lecture classes allow...more eXperienced instruc- tors to present the material and the small tutorials give...an Opportunity to test the students, give them personal help, and answer questions on the lecture material 39 and composition assignments. Many of these tutorials are taught by graduate assistants and other part-time personnel. (Nelson, Twelve, p. 8) Bob Jones University also includes vocabular study in its freshman English program. Words for the vocabulary exercises are taken from the freshman history textbook (Nelson, Twelve, p. 8). Both lecture-tutorial systems and vocabulary study as part of freshman English will receive some individual attention later in this review. Nelson's report on John Carroll University's freshman English program indicates the traditional approach for the most part. That institution has, however, made clear divisions in their syllabus. "The first half of the fresh— man year in English is differentiated into four levels-- review, normal, and advanced, and honors; the second half is divided into normal, advanced, and honors" (Nelson, Twelve, p. 9). For subject matter, the Carroll freshman English sequence calls for a progression from poetry to the short story, then to the novel, and finally to the drama (Nelson, Twelve, p. 33). Recognition of a common problem for freshman English instructors is made by the English department at the ‘University of Mississippi. In the departmental instructions to the freshman instructors is the following: Remember that you are teaching freshmen. A few months ago they were in high school. Most of them have little idea of what is to be eXpected of them in the university. EXplain what you eXpect to teach them and what you will require of them. Make your 40 assignments clear and as much as possible in advance. (Nelson, Twelve, p. 46) The above instructions are no doubt aimed at easing the anxiety of the freshmen students, but there is another reason for such a statement. At least partially respon- sible for the statement is an attitude which can be noted in that department's statement: Teaching freshman composition requires of the teacher first a precise definition of his objectives, and, second, firm discipline in following his planned program of instruction. (Nelson, Twelve, p. 46) One should readily recognize that to be able to so completely inform the students of what is expected of them, the instructor himself must be organized and his lessons and assignments must be well planned. Therefore, the Mississippi statement to the faculty serves two worthwhile functions. Contrasting the multi-course requirement of some institutions, Washington State University requires only one three—hour course to fulfill the composition require— ments for graduation. Students in the Washington State freshman English program write ten to twelve graded assign— ments in that one course. The ten to twelve assignments total approximately four to six thousand words (Nelson, Twelve, p. 72). Washington State's one required course is representative of that practice as many other institutions also use a slightly modified version of the same system. 41 There are many yardsticks to measure a student's success in freshman English. Much too often a department will have no firmly determined criteria upon which a student is passed or failed. Not so at the University of North Carolina where "...the measure of students' achieve- ment in English 1 or English 2 is based primarily upon how well they can write. Exercises, quizzes, and in-class and out-of—class themes will provide students with ample Opportunity to develOp and demonstrate their writing skills" (Nelson, Eight, p. 2). Simply stated, instructors at North Carolina pass or fail a student according to his writing ability and that alone. While the University of North Carolina has stated criterion for determining a student's success in freshman English, their program has one other feature which interests the writer much more. The program calls for evaluation of the instructors by the students. The following is part of the announcement on evaluation which each instructor receives: Teacher Evaluation forms are...availab1e to all instructors who wish, at the end of a semester, to get their students' impressions of their effectiveness as teachers. No one on the Freshman English staff is required to use these forms, but all instruc- tors are encouraged to use them for their own information. (Nelson, Ei ht, p. 34) Students at North Carolina and elsewhere would probably enjoy the Opportunity to evaluate their instructors for the instructors will be evaluating the students at various times during the year. The students will spend varying 42 amounts of time preparing themselves for evaluation. And while the in-class time a student must Spend is spelled out always, seldom are the students told how much is expected of them out-of—class. The University of Santa Clara is one institution which does set up standards regarding the amount of time a student should spend on his freshman English course in other than class hours. According to University standards, a student is to spend eight hours per week in study for this course. Approximately three to four hours should be spent in reading the material; the balance of the time in writing. (Nelson, piggy, p. 54) Programmed instruction, a technique to be treated in more depth later in this review, is employed at South Dakota State University. That school also uses television in its freshman English program. I The South Dakota approach to freshman English calls for the students falling into one of four categories. First, a remedial clinic is Operated and may be used by all students. Otherwise, the lowest 40% of students according to ACT scores taken English 103, the next 40% go directly to English 113, and the upper 20% of the students go directly to English 143. English 103 and 113 are taught one hour via television and two hours via live instructors each week. The advanced course, English 143 does not make use of television at all. Instead, 143 students receive three hours a week of live instruction (Nelson, Eight, pp. 59-60). It would seem to the writer 43 that the use of television is acceptable but that if any group needs live instruction more than another it is the group with the least ability, not the group with the most ability. What the poorer students may need most, personal contact, is the strong point of many freshman English programs, including that of the University of California which uses the pOpular 'conference' technique. Some schools define the number of conferences and others do not--Southern California does. Student and instructor are to meet for three conferences during the semester in the Southern California program. The final conference takes place during the last week of the semester and it is at that time that the instructor is to tell the student what grade he will receive and why. This last conference becomes doubly important when one realizes that that institution has no final examination in freshman English, only a final conference (Nelson, E1323! pp. 69-70). What is perhaps the most liberal freshman English program reported on by Bonnie Nelson is that of Tufts University. The following announcement from the Tufts English department eXplains: Beginning in the fall of 1968 the Depart- ment of English will introduce a new approach to the teaching of Freshman English. Instead of the department's attempting to organize a single program flexible enough to satisfy a variety of students' needs and instructors' talents, each teacher of Freshman English will design his own course. The only common element amount twelve to fifteen courses 44 will be the continued emphasis on devel- Oping the students' competence in reading, writing, and thinking. As before, every student will write at least 7000 words each semester on a variety of tOpics, and will receive individual comments both in . marginal notes and in private conferences with his instructor. (Nelson, Eight, p. 83) Contrasting the freedom the instructors of Tufts enjoy is a rigid grading scale employed by Wake Forest. Instructors are given little freedom at Wake Forest insofar as determining the seriousness of a student error is concerned. That institution's English department has set down a series of common errors on freshman themes and has stated how much each error should be penalized. Two point errors: sentence fragment comma Splice subject and verb disagreement gross illiteracies (had went, could of, etc.) One point errors: incorrect use of adjective and adverb case errors ‘ pronoun and antecedent disagreement failure to form prOper possessive tense errors lack of coherence violation of parallelism faulty reference of pronouns One—half point error: misspelling (Nelson, Eight, p. 85) With the points—per-error list goes instruction on how it is to be used in determining just how much to downgrade a theme with these errors in it. After the first two writing assignments, an excess of three points will mean an 45 automatic F for the assignment; after the fourth assignment, an excess of two points will be an F. An exception will be made for in-class writing, where one additional point will be allowed. When, in the judgement of the instructor, a student has consistently eliminated from assignments recurrent errors causing F's, his failing papers will receive additional consideration. (Nelson, Eight, p. 85) Here we see about the toughest system there is for grading freshman English papers. The writer must Show some bias here by stating that many of nation's foremost thinkers would still be taking freshman English had they been subjected to the Wake Forest standards, and had those standards in fact been enforced. The grading scale is not the only aspect of the Wake Forest freshman English program worthy of mention. That institution retains a practice one much more general than now--outlining. "All outside themes will be accompanied by outlines. In addition, two outside themes will be preceded by an outline, checked but not graded by the instructor" (Nelson, Eight, p. 87). Nelson's review did not suggest any method of determining whether Wake Forest students wrote their outlines before, after or during the writing of their themes. Probably the most revolutionary trend in freshman English is the trend toward abolising it. Nelson devoted one study to a group of nine institutions which had reportedly eliminated the traditional course in freshman English. Each of these programs is important in its own right and will be dealt with individually. 46 The writer notes that in most cases the institutions have not really drOpped the freshman English requirement and the major change is often only in course name and support subject matter. For example, Antioch College makes the following claim: ...in 1957, when the college adOpted a new program in general education, the faculty agreed that everyone had a stake in the fostering of clear and persuasive writing in students. Forthwith, the Department of English became (and still is) the Depart- ment of Literature. (Nelson, N333, p. l) Antioch makes the assumption that all students there know how to write. However, first term freshmen write a short essay during Orientation Week and only after a reader deems it satisfactory is the student free to choose his own courses. Students who fail to receive satisfactog'scores on the essay must enroll in a course which demands a great deal of writing while working on an individual basis with a tutor (Nelson, Nine, p. 1). One can readily see that Antioch has not really abolished freshman English. They have merely affected a large scale exemption policy. Students who need freShman English are still required to take it. The Antioch approach to freshman English could not work at all colleges and universities and the Antioch Department of Literature is quick to admit it. They state, "This system is possible in large measure because of high entrance requirements, and it might not work so well in another institution" (Nelson, Nine, p. 1). no!" l --1 “a ' - zun‘ ‘vu .‘ w~-\. "in. ' ' 47 Baker College, rather than actually eliminating fresh- man composition, has included it in another sequence under another name. We are eliminating our Freshman Composition 1 and 2 as such beginning in September. Theme writing will be incorporated in the three—year Humanities Core program. A Writing Laboratory will be set up to give Special assistance to those students for whom the Core teacher's comments were insufficient. (Nelson, Nine, p. 2) The free choice of subjects to satisfy the freshman requirement, very similar to the Washington University's program which was discussed earlier in this review, is the direction of Clark University with their freshman English program. Clark students make a choice of the following: The Individual and Society The Initiation Rite The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness The Hero and the Anti-Hero (Nelson, Nine, p. 3) Students at Emory University are required to take three five-credit courses to meet the freshman English total. The courses are involved with poetry, fiction, and drama, respectively. DeSpite the subject matter used here, the Emory program is neither unique nor far afield from freshman programs in dozens of other schools, (Nelson, Nine, p. 9). Exerpts from the stated objectives of these three courses indicate how much the Emory program in fact parallels those of other institutions. 48 Poetry: Emphasis upon growing maturity in the student's critical thinking and written eXpression. Fiction: Training in the elements of critical thought and the principles of techniques of composition. Brena: Continued emphasis on critical thinking and effective writing. (Nelson, Ning, p. 9) The University of Maryland is another institution which Nelson includes in her list of those which have eliminated the traditional course in freshman English. A closer examination, however, shows that such is not actually the case. What Maryland has done for the most part is change the name and numerical designation of the standard freshman course. Maryland has combined one part of the Antioch system and one of the Baker system, although the writer readily admits that there was likely no intentional borrowing of formats. The end products of the three universities have similar appearances, however. Like Antioch, Maryland has affected a large scale exemption policy, and like Baker, Maryland has imposed a required number of hours in literature. But regardless of what it is called, Maryland maintains a freshman English requirements. If a student cannot gain exemption, he must take a course in composition. The following statement from Maryland University verifies the requirement and also reveals that the course has been given remedial stature: 49 ...before a student is allowed to take any course above the 0100 level offered by the English Department he must either pass one of the three-hour English courses at the 0100 level (or equivalent), or receive the permission of the Co-ordinator for English. (Nelson, Nine, pp. 17-18) The 0100 level course that must be passed carries the following instructions: ...in all 0100 level courses...the student writes eight papers, one of which may be an impromptu 'mid—term' paper, another of which may be an impromptu 'final' paper. (Nelson, Nine, pp. 17-18) Despite the new labels, freshman English classes quite in the traditional sense do exist for those students who are unable to gain exemption at Maryland University. There are included in Nelson's study, reports of two institutions which have indeed done away with freshman English. They are Swarthmore College and Tulane Univer- sity. "Swarthmore does not require a composition course for entering freshmen nor is one offered" (Nelson, Nine, p. 24). And commenting on freshman English, Tulane officials maintain, "The fact is that virtually all appli- cants to Tulane today already possess the level of competence in general reading and writing skills which such a course is intended to cultivate and assure" (Nelson, Nine, p. 26). Still another institution included in Nelson's list of those which have eliminated the traditional freshman program is Juniata College. At that institution there is an English composition competence required for graduation. 50 Said competence may be demonstrated in a formal class situation, highly supported by conferences, or he may demonstrate competence at any other time by satisfying a committee of advisors. Regardless of which method a student chooses to receive certification that he has met the competency requirements in English, competence is only a graduation requirement and does not carry any credit hours (Nelson, College, p. 13). The freshman English program at Elmira College is different from most other freshman programs, not so much because it frees the student from writing training but because of the methodology used. Instructors there are given a free hand in determining the content of their particular sections. Classes are small and are as likely to meet in a recreation room, a lounge, or a faculty office as they are to meet in a classroom. But when all is said and done, the objectives of this program are not too different from others. The instructors still work on reading, writing and speaking. Students still write themes. Remedial help with writing is still very much available (Nelson, College, pp. 14-17). In summary of Nelson's report on institutions which have abolished traditional freshman English, the writer wishes to reiterate an earlier remark. Although one may often hear of the current trend to dr0p freshman English, such is in fact not the case except in a very few insti- tutions where entering freshmen bring to the college with x a I 51 them a high degree of competence on writing. What is most often referred to as drOpping freshman English is nothing more than a new package for the same old product. Many of the programs reviewed to this point have placed varying amounts of emphasis on small classes. However, there are those who advocate and defend freshman English classes well in the hundreds at certain times. One such prOponent of this system is Walter G. Praushitz who, after a study at Concordia, wrote the following: Provided the classroom facilities are equivalent (and provided the teacher makes the necessary adjustments in preparation), there is little difference between lec- turing to 30 or to 300 students, except to the college treasurer. (Praushitz, p. 17) The large lecture classes Praushitz is reporting on are too often rejected as a technique by English departments which have never tested it. Large lecture groups could well be the answer to some of the major logistic problems facing many freshman English programs today. First-hand testing of hypotheses regarding the teaching of freshman English is being done in some quarters. A fine example of evaluation of freshman English is that one reported on by Braddock and Statler. Several years ago the University of Northern Iowa initiated a project to test the effectiveness of college-level instruction in freshman composition. Briefly, the eXper- iment involved excusing from the freshman composition course at each of the five institutions during the academic year 1964- 65 some 325 entering freshmen matched with other entering freshmen taking the course. The UNI eXperiment intended to reach some 52 generalizations about the effectiveness of freshman composition courses in general. (Braddock, Evaluation, p. l) A synOpsis of the conclusions and recommendations from the Braddock and Statler report is as follows: Unfortunately, the answers sought by the project were not obtained. The results of the eXperiment were inconclusive, most importantly, because the rating of the papers was not reliable. Several eXplanations for the unreliability seem apparent: 1. The two themes used as a basis for selecting raters were both 'C' papers. In addition to 'C' papers, clear examples of 'A' and 'F' papers should have been used. It may be that the fourteen raters tended to keep their ratings near a 'safe' average range and hence not to discriminate differences among papers. 2. The rereading of papers to determine rating reliability should have been more carefully planned. 3. When two or more pretest or two or more posttest themes are used...probably the same type of assignment should be employed for each theme. 4. More time should have been devoted during the rating period to the rating and discussion of themes carefully selected to exemplify certain kinds of problems. 5. It has been suggested to the authors of this report that it might have been better to use a rating scale ranging more widely than the scale normally used for instructional purposes. 6. One explanation for the low reliability of the rating may have been that the differences among the papers were in fact very small. If that were true, it could be attributed to the ineffectiveness of requiring freshman composi- tion. Perhaps by the college freshman year, writing habits are so established that instruc- tion can affect them but little. (Braddock, Evaluation, pp. 25-27) 53 What the Iowa study should be remembered for is not that it failed to meet its Objectives but rather that it was tried at all. The willingness of those involved to attempt some kind of a scientific evaluation is to be commended. If nothing else, the persons involved in this study have illustrated that whereas evaluation of freshman English is highly desirable, it is not easy. The writer suggests that the Iowa project has the value of pointing out the importance of outside aid for English departments which intend to evaluate their respective programs. Such departments would do well to recruit the assistance of educational psychology eXperts as well as persons with competence in tests and measurements. Had eXperts in educational psychology and tests and measurements been involved in the planning stages of the Iowa eXperiment, it is quite likely that the results would have been more gratifying. Not all research connected with freshman English is, however, subject to incompleteness. And where eXperiments are kept simple, the chances of success are high. A good example of such is a study done on vocabulary by Alvina .Burrows. That study was concerned mostly with elementary and secondary education but it has some implications to college freshman English, especially when the reader recalls a Exaint earlier in this review where vocabulary building was emphasized in freshman English at one particular institution . 54 Burrows claims that there are between two and three thousand known words of maximum frequency in the English language. “Beyond these known words of maximum frequency, the chance of needing one word rather than another is one out of an astronomical figure" (Burrows, p. 25). Not only does Burrows' study include the above statement regarding vocabulary, it also contains the following warning about investing time and effort in studying other than maximum frequency words: "Further, time Spent on studying these words of low frequency is a hazardous investment" (Burrows, p. 25). In an attempt to increase quality eXperimentation with regard to the teaching of English, a number of nation- wide conferences have been called. The fact that about eighty English department representatives from across the nation gathered at Allerton Park in December of 1962 to discuss current research in the teaching of English indicates a strong and active interest in the matter (Wasson, p. 1). But despite this interest, the writer of this review feels there is still not enough worthwhile eXperimentation being done. Because of this belief, the writer has decided to review a number of eXperimental studies which he feels are indicative of the type of research needed. John C. Woodward has conducted an interesting and informative study at Miami University. He attempted to draw a verbal picture of the poor writer. Here are selected points from his conclusions: 55 The poor writer tends to: be male score lower in all areas of college aptitude tests not differ from other writing categories in intended course of study not differ in age from other writers not differ from other students in native backgrounds, foreign or American come from a private school other than parochial come from a town of less than 2,500 pOpulation not differ from other students for size of senior high school class have fathers who are in a semiskilled occupation not differ from other groups for father's educational background have read the daily newspaper in high school the same amount of time as other students except for those who read 20-30 minutes a day come from a home who regularly subscribed to as many magazines as the other writing categories come from homes with no home library have written just as many term papers in their senior year of high school as other students come from a high school where essays or themes were not required in the English Composition classes have not been required to read any books aside from textbooks during their senior year in high school not differ from other writing categories for the amount of time their high school English classes Spent on formal grammar except for those who spent more than one-half time. Students who spent more than one-half time are found less frequently in the 'poor' category prefer to read the same kinds of books as other students attend movies the same amount of times each week as other groups view TV the same amount of time as other students not enjoy writing dislike English teachers, but not to a significant degree feel that writing is not as important as other skills spend 'no' time in preparation before writing a theme have career goals similar to other students (Woodward, pp. 35-37) 56 Woodward's study is capable of rocking the very foundation of some of our prejudice and bias about teaching composition and why a poor writer is a poor writer. Clearly, each and every point made by Woodward warrants further investigation in the best interests of teaching composition. Out of these other studies would come usable methods to be employed in the face of so many poor writers at the college level. An example of how each of Woodward's points could and should be subjected to deeper analysis is a report by Samuel Aven and Marvin Chrisp. While the reviewer has no evidence to link the latter two men to any knowledge of Woodward's study, they have nonetheless gone into depth on the first point made in the profile of the poor writer-~he is male. Initially in Aven and Chrisp's study, Woodward's first point is verified. ...a standardized English text was admini- stered to 1341 college freshmen. The findings indicated that girls were signi- ficantly more proficient in English than boys after twelve years of public school. On the standardized English test admini- stered in the study, significantly more boys than girls scored below the 50th percentile. (Aven, p. 2) The beauty of the Aven-ChriSp study is not the pre- ceding; it is in their reaction to their_findings. They presented the following statement which is food for thought, to be sure, but also suggests the need for even more study regarding this single aspect of the poor writer. They 57 wrote, “Traditionally English has been taught the same way to girls and boys. It is time to consider the possibility of teaching differently to boys" (Aven, p. 2). Still another highly innovative eXperiment in teaching freshman English is 'Voice Project' at Stanford University. At that institution, one hundred student volunteers were taught by a staff who were in their own right writers with varying degrees of success in many types of literature. The objectives of the Stanford experiment were: 1. to assist the students to discover and develOp their own writing 'voice' as well as a personal prose style, be that prose eXpository or creative. 2. to get eXperienced writers, including novelists, poets, playwrights, and essayists involved in the teaching of writing. 3. to eXperience working at various educational levels, through involving the students and faculty in eXperiments in elementary and secondary schools. 4. to work with students from varied socio- economic backgrounds.- 5. to encourage like eXperiments through involving other institutions of higher learning by visitations, exchanges, seminars, and demonstrations. The volunteer students taught at local schools and were encouraged to write from their experiences at those schools (Hawkes, pp. l-306). Stanford's evaluation of their experiment contains the following interesting remarks: Throughout this year we stimulated interest in writing on the Stanford campus and in the 58 local schools and involved many different kinds of teachers and students in our efforts. (Hawkes, p. xvi) Then, too, our efforts to help our Stanford students to function at least in part as teachers in the schools were sometimes less effective than they might have been due to the necessary flexibility and spontaneity of the first year. That is, some of the less structured teaching moments were difficult for the students and a more precise ordering of future materials is probably desired. (Hawkes, p. xvii) It goes without saying that the most important aSpect of this project was the use of the con- cept of voice and the use of recording devices to help students at different educational levels and of different social backgrounds to write more effectively. (Hawkes, p. xvii) Despite this present year of Voice Project work, and all that we know about rhetoric as well as new develOpments in linguistics, it seems safe to say that there will never be any one way to teach writing, and further, that we really do not know very much about this process. (Hawkes, p. xviii) Again we see a statement which claims that much more research must be done before we will better understand the writing process and the teaching of writing. Yet while much more research is warranted, many college and univer- sity English departments do no research at all with this regard. Rather than prOperly instructionally develOp a sound freshman English program built on a foundation of scientific findings, English departments are too ready to continue to act on a trial and error system, a system which very often falls far short of the objectives set for it. 59 When an English department wants to determine the feasibility the using one approach to the teaching of freshman English as Opposed to another approach which might be used, there is no room for guess work. Both programs should be tested. The department should attempt to determine which of the two systems best serves its interests and those of the students who look to that department for a sound English education. An example of this type of comparative analysis is found in Lamore Carter's study in which he eXperimented to determine the initial and sustained benefits of two methods of teaching remedial English at the college level. The two approaches Carter worked with were (1) the con— ventional-~which involved lectures, the use of a textbook, grammar drills, class discussions, and impromptu essays-— was designed to emphasize the most frequently occurring errors of typical college freshmen; (2) the laboratory method, using specially structured, unrehearsed verbal recordings of classroom responses and mimeographed COpies of the same material as teaching content to instill better student understanding and skills in English without the use of textbooks or workbooks. Carter's evaluation instruments--pretest, posttest, and persistency test-- pointed out that the laboratory technique was superior only insofar as improvement of spoken English was concerned (Carter, pp. 1—96). 60 If one were to ask what implications Carter's study has to freshman English as a whole, it could be stated that the eXperimenter now knows the validity of his initial hypothesis regarding which of the two methods would be best. It is often just as useful to disprove an hypothesis as it is to prove it, and so it is with Carter's eXperiment. Another freshman English experiment which in fact failed to substantiate an hypothesis is that one run by Melvin Wolf and others who were interested in determining whether or not it was fact that a student's writing pro- ficiency increased according to his writing frequency. A well conducted eXperiment using no less than six freshman English sections indicated that no positive correlation can be made between writing frequency and writing proficien- cy (Wolf, pp. 1-59). Not all of the Wolf study resulted in negation, however. An important and interesting side-eXperiment showed positive results. That second experiment within the study established that there is a significant correlation between a student's ability to successfully handle grammatical and mechanical aSpects of writing and his ability to write well, writing being considered com- petence with regard to content, organization, develOpment of ideas, style, and control of mechanics (Wolf, pp. 1-59). It is interesting to note that the Wolf study is the second in this review which has directly linked the ability to write well with the ability to perform with grammatical 61 accuracy. Earlier, Woodward's "Profile of the Poor Writer" had noted a significant correlation between students' high school grammatical study and their likelihood of being or not being in the poor writer category. More research on this matter will have to be done before one may rightfully state that colleges and universities are not serving the best interests of the students when they fail to include any grammar in their freshman English programs. Neverthe- less, some research indicates that may be the case. Just as Wolf and his associates eXperimented with two approaches to teaching freshman English so did Rex Burns and Robert Jones. These men chose to compare two pOpular but still eXperimental approaches to teaching freshman English--the lecture-tutorial technique, and team teaching. The results of the team teaching half of the eXperiment will not be known until 1970, but the evaluation of the lecture- tutorial method is completed and the results are favorable. When the lecture-tutorial method was compared to the traditional classroom lecture method-~just as the team teaching technique will be compared-~it was found that the experimental approach saved time and resulted in a sharper focus on subject matter, not to mention greatly improved communication between pupil and teacher. This method proved to be popular with the faculty and with the students as well (Burns, pp. 1-13). EXperimentation can provide the answers to many questions concerning freshman English. One particular 62 question Stockton College wanted answered involved whether or not the English test they were using to pre- test freshmen could in fact serve as an adequate predictor of success or failure within their program. This question, or at least the answer to it, has far—reaching implications in that a multitude of colleges and universities use standardized tests to determine where each entering" freshman should be placed within the English program, if he is to be placed in it at all. There is reason to believe that if the COOperative English Test is in fact not a successful predictor of a student's success at Stockton, then maybe the test and others like it are not adequate predictors of a student's success and exemption policies based on those tests are not justified. The results of Stockton's eXperiment are as follows: Because the Vocabulary, Effectiveness, and Speed coefficients or correlation are so low as to indicate either no positive relation- ship with final semester grades or a very slight relationship, this study presents no evidence to support using those parts of the test for the purpose of determining which students shall be permitted or denied the Opportunity of enrolling in Stockton College's English 1A - 1A71. (Barber, p. 17) The one remaining part of the COOperative English Test did, however, serve successfully as a predictor of success within the Stockton freshman English program. The conten- tion that there is a significant correlation between ability to handle the mechanics of English and the ability to write well is reinforced in the following: 63 The chi square and phi test indicate that the Mechanics part of the COOperative English Test makes a reasonably good pre— diction of success in English 1A - 1A71. (Barber, p. 17) Meanwhile other Scientific eXperimentation similar to the Stockton study is being conducted into many other aspects of freshman English. Not all of these eXperi- ments are testing new methodology or newly derived hypotheses. Some are testing the effect of old educational techniques applied to current teaching. One such established educational practice recently injected into freshman English on an experimental basis was the notion of the correspondence course. The University of Kansas recently completed a four- year feasibility study aimed at evaluating the worth of what they call the 'correspondence—tutorial' method of teaching freshman English. Under investigation was a program which called for the students to meet with their respective instructors only once a week; the rest of the requirement was to be completed in a correspondence course fashion (Willingham, pp. 1-15). When this new approach was compared to the existing conventional one, it was found that there was no significant difference between the two methods insofar as student success was concerned (Willingham, p. 14). Willingham, author of the eXperiment report, is quick to point out, however, that while the two methods compared resulted in no significant difference, the correspondence- 64 tutorial method did have certain drawbacks which limited its acceptability. He wrote: The 'correspondence-tutorial' method, however, is not without its defects, which must not be minimized. After the first year of the pro- gram, attendance of this group was mandatory, because absenteeism was extremely high. As few as one-fourth of the students in the first year of the project attended the weekly tutorial sessions. ...Furthermore, although the 'correspondence-tutorial' mode eliminates the 'lockstep' of three meetings per week of the conventional Freshman Composition mode, in practice the 'lockstep' is still present in another form since students must hand work in and revise it at certain Specified times. Failure to do so results in serious logistical problems of getting their work graded and handed back. (Willingham, p. 15) Experimentation with another long—established practice, that having the English teacher correct each and every theme a student hands in was the target of a study by Howard Pierson. He chose to compare and contrast the value of peer correction versus that of teacher correction of writing. While the study is not conclusive, it certainly illustrates that teachers of English still do not really know whether or not they must correct their-students' writing. In the following quotation one will note that although Pierson takes a strong stand one way, he prefaces his findings with those of Buxton, findings which are directly contrary to the theme of Pierson's work. Investigating freshman composition at the University of Alberta, Buxton learned that the teachers who corrected papers thoroughly, obtained better improvement in writing than the teachers who corrected papers scantily. However, no one else has found any good 65 words to say for teacher correction. In comparing ninth graders in Iowa, Fellows arranged for some classes to have essays marked with letter ratings only. After this study ended, neither group wrote any better than the other. Recently, Arnold and Burton saw the same results when they had teachers in Florida mark tenth grade compositions with degrees of intensity. (Pierson, p. 1) Pierson continues the question later in his report when he states: When Dora V. Smith used peer correction with large classes of ninth graders in Minnesota, she found that they were able to score as well on composition tests as small classes whose writings she corrected herself. With freshmen at Purdue, Maize got better results from a combination of peer correcting and teachers' correcting and infrequent writing. Freshmen in Oklahoma tested no differently regardless of whether teachers corrected their papers or whether they corrected one another's, according to Boyet. Sutton and Allen noted the same outcome in a study of Stetson University freshmen. Those few investigations suggest that the peer method is at least as effective as the teacher method. (Pierson, pp. 2—3) The reviewer feels that other responsible researchers must evaluate the claims for peer correction made by Pierson and others. For if what Pierson claims is in fact true, it would mean a major revolution in the teaching <3f freshman English. At least it should have major impact upon.those whose job it is to teach writing. While Pierson attempts to shatter our belief that the Ihuglish teacher must grade the students' writing, James Moffett is found attacking still another grass-roots belief of many teachers of writing. Moffett, unlike so many other 66 English teachers, refuses to believe that having students write and/or correct excerpts and brief statements is in the best interests of teaching writing. He leaves no room for doubt in the following remark: The word, the sentence, and the paragraph are all sub-structures lacking precisely that context of purpose and intent which is the heart of rhetoric. I do not see how a teacher can possibly be serious about rhetoric and continue to assign workbook exercises or the writing of isolated sen- tences and paragraphs. What for? This is not composition, it is decompOSItion. (Moffett, p. 115) Be he right or wrong, Moffett has obviously ignored one major premise of his attitude. He has not, nor has anyone else, scientifically proven the case for rhetoric as a means to teaching writing. An attempt to do so comes from Edward Corbett who reports his discovery of rhetorical principles, how he used them to teach writing, and how doing so has made him a better teacher (Corbett, pp. 3-12). However, he presents no empirical support, nor does he account for the multitude of variables which could have come into play to make him a better teacher of writing, if in fact he did improve. Corbett is here playing the part of the traditional "expert," a being who has a tendency to Inake judgments according to his particular prejudice and bias at the time. Corbett's handling of his report is unfortunate. Iflnat.he claims may or may not be true. There are already ‘boo many unsupported hypotheses receiving lip-service in freshmen.Eng1ish classrooms across the nation. 67 Basically, the hypothesis was not tested prOperly; the truth of it is obscure until it has been tested scientifically. Earlier in this review the Concordia freshman English program was quoted as having tested the effect of teaching large classes via television, then breaking those large television lecture classes into smaller groups for dis- cussion. But the Concordia report is not effective in commenting on the next 'grass—roots contention' to be dealt with in thisreview——the belief that freshman English classes should be limited to about twenty—five students per section. The use of television negates the Concordia program's value in this particular instance as the twenty— five to a class idea presupposes the unavailability of television. Of the many studies done to determine whether or not large numbers of freshmen can be placed in the same room at the same time and still receive an education equal to that which they would have received had they been placed in smaller classes, probably the most relevant to this review is the one done by Harold HOpper and Helen Keller. Their study is most relevant here for two reasons: (1) They were directly concerned with the relationship of class size to effective learning in regard to writing skills only, and (2) their judgments were based in part on earlier studies, including those of Winslow Hatch, 68 Cammarosano and SantOpola, Kenneth Anderson, Louis O'Shaughnessy, and Howard Bosley (Hopper, pp. 2-3). The statement of HOpper and Keller's findings is as follows: The results unequivocably established that, given the same quality of instructors, pro- gram, and students involved in this eXperiment, class size up to 56 does not seem to be a significant variable, in the learning of writing skills. (Hopper, pp. 2-3) The class-size study limits the number of students to fifty-six, not because that is the point at which it became ineffective, but because that was the largest class involved in the eXperiment (Hopper, p. 3). One cannot accurately predict what the results of the eXperiment would have been had the largest class numbered one hundred, one hundred and fifty, or even two hundred students. Class size is no problem, however, for one of the most recent innovations in teach English—-the programmed text. The effect of teaching English through programmed texts has been the tOpic of many studies. The following are two of the most representative of these studies. One is concerned with programming replacing class work; the second is concerned with programming to supplement class— room activities. Martha Trimble conducted an eXperiment to determine the effectiveness of using programming instead of class time to teach spelling, diction, and sentence arrangement and paragraph coherence. Trimble was primarily interested 69 in evaluating the improvement in student language habits and in determining whether or not the method offered savings in time and personnel over the traditional method of teaching the same matter. The results were positive in all cases and the objectives of the experiment were met. However, Trimble withheld total support for the method after concluding that there was more contributing to the results than readily met the eye. She concluded that her eXperiment had shown that motivation was more important to the success of the study than was method (Trimble, pp. 1-107). Jack Tohtz and Gerhard Lang conducted an experiment which compared programmed instruction homework assignments with normal homework assignments in teaching eXpository writing to freshman English students. The conclusions were that the programmed group did no better than the conventional group, and that the group receiving the programmed homework spent less time on their out-of—class assignments than did the conventional group. The study must not have been unrewarding to Tohtz and Lang for one of the recommendations was that programmed texts be develOped for all aspects of English at the college level (Tohtz, pp. 1-147). Another late entry into the freshman English class— room has been electrical devices such as tape recorders and dictating machines which have found a home in some 70 programs. But it is only recently that thorough investi- gation of their actual worth has been undertaken. T. J. Kallsen completed a feasibility study aimed at determining the effects of using the dictating machine to act as a vehicle for transmitting teacher comments to students. Others use the tape recorder in a similar role. Unfortunately insofar as teacher work load is concerned, Kallsen concluded after an eXperiment involving six hundred freshman English students that the dictating machine technique did not aid the average student any more than normal on-the-paper comments. Superior students, however, were able to profit more from the eXperience, especially when the comments recorded had to do with content or organization of the student's paper (Kallsen, pp. 1-106). As dictating machines and programmed instruction become a potential tool for improving instruction of freshman English, the most profitable arena for improvement is perhaps being overlooked. Too seldom do studies go back to the basics, back to the prime objectives of the course and the attitudes of the instructors. Perhaps the entire stance of the English teacher is wrong. At least that is what is intimated in articles by J. J. Lamberts and Wallace Karl. Lamberts comments: In our eagerness to help our students we are often much too kind to them. The mischief begins in high school and even earlier than that. Teachers complain again and again that they have countless papers to take home 71 and 'correct.‘ This is exactly the word they use, and they mean it. They suppose they need to edit the papers for the youngsters. That is preposterous. - (Lamberts, p. 232) What is important here is more than the question of whether or not a teacher needs to correct his students' papers. That problem was seen in the Pierson study; what we should be concerned with here is self—concept. One might ask the question, "What is the English teacher's concept of himself. How would he define his role in and out of the classroom?" It is possible that Lamberts' statement is as much interested in getting teachers to act upon new knowledge as it is to eXpress an Opinion regarding the correcting of papers. If that statement can be seen as coming from a recognition that English teachers are not keeping up with the times, the freshman English teacher's task is doubly difficult by increasing irrelevance in what could be the most relevant course at any institution. Wallace Karl is of the Opinion that English teachers have failed to move with the times. He pulls no punches when he charges that the practice of modern English teachers is to turn away from vital issues and thereby contribute greatly to the present undistinguished state of rhetoric teaching and its lack of relevance to life (Karl, pp. 384— 391). Where freshman English programs do make a conscious effort to keep up with the times, new things are tried and IA- 1 . 3 vvwv a ‘R‘fi‘PJ ‘ H ucdhubn noun" Ruleu ‘ I, . “’“Eu “...a. \ .4 .1 ~. I A. fig“ . .“q; 'n , ‘|. 72 some of the old ways of doing things are tried anew in another light. Examples of such would include language study as part of the freshman English program and verse writing to teach the principles of that art. A report from Virginia Foscue relates: For three years at the main campus of the University of Alabama we have used a language reader in the first semester composition course for average freshmen. Our assumption has been that we are better prepared to teach the principles of language and literature than those of such subjects as psychology, political science, sociology, or philOSOphy. Our purpose in using the reader has been to help our students become observers of real language in actual use, which we feel is the only lasting way to make them better users of language. (Foscue, p. 1) The basis for the Alabama attitude is prOper utiliza- tion of faculty competency. To obtain best results from such a program the instructors must be prepared to deal with language per se. According to the Foscue report: ...the success of an English program such as ours, in which instruction in language is integrated with that in composition and literature, depends upon the training, eXperience, and enthusiasm of the instruc- tors. Since many of our teaching assistants lack training and experience, we attempt to help them by providing in-service training and by assigning eXperienced instructors to advise them. (Foscue, p. 5) The in—service training received by instructors at the University of Alabama very well may spell the difference between mediocre and superior instruction. Some writers have pointed out that in-service procedures comparable to VIRA- envy. snou‘ out I. 9y. .‘ 1 “sun . ‘ I 4“! - c‘. \~'_ Q a‘bg I.': 73 that mentioned above are paramount to the success or failure of any freshman English program. A program need not go into language training to eXpose incompleteness in training of many freshman English instructors. As Dorothy Fordyce indicated in an article prepared for the National Council of Teachers of English, most freshman English teachers have had only their under- graduate freshman sequence to prepare them for dealing with themes. This insufficient training can, however, be made up through participation in in-service training programs (Fordyce, pp. 1—7). A further example of an old thing being tried in another light is verse writing in the English class as attempted by Milton Kaplan. His philOSOphy in the matter was stated thusly: The attempt to write poetry, nevertheless, if prOperly directed can be a rewarding experience, for through the writing of poetic composition students become aware of the material and the nature of verse and thus gain an appreciation of poetry that is often missing in the high school class. (Kaplan, p. 880) Kaplan's remark should be highly pertinent to those departments which incorporate literature study--and especially poetry--into their freshman English programs. There is also a possibility that student efforts with other types of literature would have the same effect on the students that poetry writing can have. 74 Summary: This review of literature has served its purpose if it has made clear that when it comes to analyzing freshman English programs nothing is very clear at all. There are almost as many different conceptions Of what Freshman English is as there are institutions. This heterogeneity is fostered primarily by two factors: (1) program objectives vary so much from school to school, and (2) there does not seem to be a favorable attitude toward scientific research. Program objectives are so different, one institution to the next, because of the types of students involved, the respective financial abilities of the institutions, and because program goals are often set by persons outside the department. The less than favorable attitude toward scientific research reveals itself in unwillingness on the part of faculty members to investigate teaching rather than literature per se. It is further displayed by departments which seemingly ignore that research which has been done. It is a sad commentary on the investigative powers of freshman English personnel when one is able to charge that no one can really say how the course should or should not be taught. In keeping with the disposition to ignore research findings--at least to a major degree-—is the obvious lack of COOperation between the various departments within an 75 institution as well as a lack of cooperation of English departments within existing groups such as state associations. Too few state-wide studies have been done. Too seldom do institutions within a state act as centers of diffusion for research on freshman English. Studies such as Richard Braddock's, "How Iowa Colleges and Universities Will Deal With Students in 1966—67," or Richard Bessone's, "Remedial English Instruction in California Public Junior Colleges--An Analysis and Evaluation of Current Practices" are much too rare for the good of freshman English. National associations, such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the Modern Language Association cannot be eXpected to carry the full load. Neither can most state English associations. The responsibilities of these associations are manifold; they are not able to devote their major energies to freshman English as they must serve for the most part as vehicles for dissemenation of information on literature and the teaching of literature. Then too, like many academic associations, they are too often lofty and above the "gut- level" problems which face classroom freshman English instructors. A more detailed summary of conclusions and recommen- dations either stated or implied in this review of the literature will be found in Chapter V. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE The Questionnaire Technique The questionnaire is a major instrument for data-gathering in descriptive-survey studies, and is used to secure information from varied and widely scattered sources.... The questionnaire is particularly useful when one cannot readily see personally all of the peOple from whom he desires responses or where there is no particular reason to see the respondent personally. This technique may be used to gather data from any aange of territory, sometimes international or national. (Good and Scates, pp. 606-607) As educational research authorities Carter Good and Douglas Scates have indicated, the questionnaire technique facilitates data-gathering for descriptive-survey studies, particularly when the survey is to be administerd over a large range of territory such as was the case with this survey of colleges and universities in the United States. It was for this reason that the questionnaire approach was utilized in seeking information regarding freshman English programs in two hundred randomly selected American colleges and universities. The writer feels there was no other practical method of obtaining the information pro— vided by this study. Using the fall 1968 edition of the Directory of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education, the writer identified 76 77 each and every American institution of higher education which met the following initial criteria: The institutions included must: 1. be accredited by one of the Six regional accreditation associations. 2. be a liberal arts and/or teacher—training institution. 3. confer the bachelor's degree at least. A thorough search of the listing of all colleges and universities in the United States yielded a total population of eleven hundred and fifty-four institutions which met the initial criteria. The eleven hundred and fifty-four institution pOpula- tion was then divided into two groups. The first group was made up of institutions which offer the bachelor's degree only. The second group was made up of institutions which offer some type of graduate degree. Using the Directory, the investigator identified a total of five hundred and fifty-two institutions which met the criteria for inclusion in the first group. These institutions were each assigned a consecutive number from one to five hundred and fifty—two. The same procedure was used to identify the six hundred and two members of group two. Each of the six hundred and two institutions in group two was assigned a consecutive number from one to Six hundred and two. The investigator then followed instructions for selecting one hundred random numbers within each of the two pOpulation totals--five hundred and fifty—two; and 78 six hundred and two (Hays, pp. 334—337). From a table of random numbers (Hays, pp. 631-635), the investigator gleaned one hundred random numbers between one and five hundred and fifty—two, and one hundred random numbers between one and six hundred and two. Previously numbered institutions whose assigned number corresponded to the one hundred randomly selected numbers within each group were drawn from the two respective populations. The name and mailing address of each of the two hundred institutions to be used in the study was compiled (see Appendix) and a questionnaire was mailed to each. In an attempt to secure a good percentage of returns and to insure accurate responses, the investigator consulted a number of sources for guidance in preparation and use of the questionnaire. The most beneficial sources at this point were: Planning of Experiments, by D. R. Cox; Basic Statistical Methods, by N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath; Statistics for Psychologists, by William L. Hays; and Methods of Research, by Carter Good and Douglas Scates. The number of questionnaire returns and the lack of conflict within the reSponses indicates the instrument Inust have been sound. Therefore, the above-mentioned guiding sources were worthwhile as they appear to have aided greatly in minimizing difficulty in preparation of 'the questionnaire while maximizing the usability of the returns. 79 The Instrument A nine page questionnaire was prepared for the pur— pose of surveying freshman English programs as they exist in two hundred randomly selected American colleges and universities. It contained sixty-seven questions. All of the one hundred and twenty individual responses on each questionnaire was constructed in nature and required the respondent to simply place and "X" at the apprOpriate place within the question. No question called for any response other than a simple "X", except where the respon- dent felt a particular question did not apply to his institution's freshman English program. Where a question did not apply, the respondent was instructed to mark it with a capital "NA." The first mailing of the questionnaires took place on October 1 and resulted in 110 returns at the end of two weeks. On October 17 a second COpy of the questionnaire was mailed to institutions which had failed to respond to the first mailing. This second mailing resulted in the return of 50 more completed questionnaires. In a11——including first and second mailing--l60 of the two hundred institutions responded. Stated otherwise, 79 percent of the institutions in group one responded (the bachelor's only group), and 81 percent of the institutions in group two responded (the graduate degree group). This eXperience with the normative-survey technique has proven trying at times, to be sure. However, despite 80 the hardships of the technique, it has been a thoroughly worthwhile undertaking. Careful planning and some amount of patience enabled the investigator to avoid most of the pitfalls that so often entrap one using this technique, a technique described as one which, among other qualities, ...is relatively slow, requires a large investment of time on the part of the investigator, and often gives results that are highly disappointing because of their incompleteness, indefiniteness, and the generally hostile attitude of recipients toward the flood of appeals made for COOperation in answering questionnaires.... (Good and Scates, p. 605) CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF DATA Group One (institutions which offer four year degrees only) This group consists of sixty-one institutions which completed the questionnaire and specifically met the established criteria. Other institutions which returned the questionnaire but failed in some way to fully meet the established criteria will be considered at the close of this chapter. The breakdown of the sixty-one institutions whose answers to the questionnaire were compiled in this section of the presentation of data is as follows: thirty—eight (61%) of the institutions reported one thousand under- graduate students or less. Eighteen (29%) of the group reported undergraduate student populations between one thousand and two thousand. Two (3%) institutions were in the two thousand to three thousand category, and a like number of institutions in the three to five thousand and the five thousand to eight thousand undergraduate student group replied. There are no institutions of over eight thousand undergraduate students in this group. In response to the question which sought to determine the length of time it has been since each freshman English 81 82 program underwent a major revision there came the following: twenty-seven (44%) of the reporting institutions replied that their program had undergone major revision in the past year. Five (8%) institutions reported revision two years ago, eleven (18%) reported a three year period since major revision, two (3%) institutions had not brought about a major revision for four years, and sixteen (26%) of the institutions reported that their respective programs in freshman English have not undergone major revision for five years or more. Forty-five (74%) institutions in group one reported that their respective freshman English programs normally require a full academic year to complete. Sixteen (26%) of the institutions reported that their programs are not one full academic year. Of those institutions which indicated that their freshman English programs are not one full academic year in length, three (33%) require one quarter, none require two quarters, six (67%) require one semester and none require one trimester. Twenty-three (44%) of the institutions responding to the question which asked if that institution has any evidence that indicates most students would continue to benefit from a program of extended duration replied to the affirmative. Twenty-nine (56%) replied in the neggtive. 83 The group reported the make-up of their courses as follows: twenty-eight (48%) claimed grammar, composition and literature; four (7%) replied to grammar and composition, but no literature; and twenty-six (45%) replied to com— position and literature but no grammar. Of the six grading system choices offered, the A, B, C, D, F system received fifty-eight (95%) affirmations, one institution reported it used Pass-Fail, one institution uses the Credit—No Credit approach, and one uses a system other than those listed in the question. No institutions reporting use either the 4.0, 3.5, 3.0 etc. system or the Satisfactory-Unsatisfactory system. The question regarding the average number of students per class within the various freshman English programs drew the following replies: no institutions reported classes of 1eSS than fifteen students. Twelve (20%) reported average classes of fifteen to twenty students. Twenty- eight (46%) claimed twenty to twenty—five as their average class size, twenty (33%) claimed the twenty-five to thirty average class Size; none reported average classes of thirty to forty, and one institution reported average classes of over forty. In response to the question which sought to determine the major factors used in determing the number of students per class within the various freshman English programs, the institutions replied: forty—one (85%) reported that they :regard as a major factor a relatively firm predetermined 84 number; eight (15%) did not see this as a major factor within their programs. Forty (87%) maintain that the ratio of students to available staff is a major factor in determining class size at their respective institutions, and six (13%) did not accept this point. Twenty-three (68%) departments feel that the number of compositions an instructor can normally be eXpected to grade is a major factor while eleven (32%) did not. The number of hours a week a freshman English class meets range from two to five. No institutions reported only one hour a week; six (10%) reported two hours of class a week; forty-five (74%) reported three hours per week; eight (13%) reported four hours per week; two (3%) reported five hours per week; no institution reported meeting freshman English more than five hours per week. Twenty-one (34%) departments reported that they have a freshman English supervisor other than the department chairman; forty (66%) schools reported no supervisor of freshman English other than the department chairman. Of those persons in charge of freshman English, not one teaches no hours a week; none teaches three or less hours per week; four (7%) teach four to six hours a week; twenty-three (38%) teach seven to nine hours per week; and thirty-three (55%) of the reSpondents to this question indicated that they teach over nine hours per week. Within the above group of freshman English directors, fifty-two (88%) reported that they teach at least one 85 section of freshman English during the school year. Seven (12%) reported they do not teach at least one section during the year. Those persons in charge of directing freshman English (either as Director of Freshman English or as Chairman) reported varying degrees of formal training in certain areas. Thirty-two (57%) replied that they have had learning theory; twenty—four (43%) have not. Fourteen (33%) replied 'yes' to the question as to whether or not they had formal training in tests and measurements; twenty—eight (67%) have not. Ten (23%) claimed formal training in statistics; thirty—three (77%) have not. One (3%) respondent claimed formal training in computer assisted instruction; forty (97%) did not. Twenty-four (48%) have had formal training in the use of new media; twenty—six (52%) have not. And twenty-one (41%) reported they have had training with regard to communication theory while thirty (59%) report they have not. Freshman English directors (either Director per se or Chairman) show the following with regard to a question about their familiarity with five articles or texts directly related to their occupations. Thirty—two (57%) were familiar with Albert Kitzhaber's, Themes, Theories, and Therapy; twenty-one (43%) were not. Twenty—nine (59%) were familiar with Warner Rice's "A PrOposal for the Abolition of Freshman English as it is Now Commonly Taught;" twenty (41%) were not familiar with the article. "Research in 86 Written Composition" by Braddock, Lloyd-Jones, and Shoer was familiar to fifteen (32%) respondents; thirty-two (68%) claimed no familiarity with it. The College Teaching of English, edited by John C. Gerber, was known to thirty— two (60%) of the respondents; it was not familiar to twenty- one (40%). Three (7%) reported familiarity with Harrison Hoblitzelle's "A Study of Freshman English, An Informal Study." Forty (93%) were not familiar with the Hoblitzelle article. Federal funds for the improvement of freshman English programs went to one (1.69%) of the institutions which answered the question pertaining to receipt of federal funds; fifty-eight (98.31%) of those responding indicated they received no federal funds during 1968-69 for the purpose of improving the teaching of freshman English. Of fifty-six institutions which reSponded to the question regarding whether or not they had applied for federal funds during the stated period, one (1.78%) replied in the affirmative while fifty-five (98.22%) replied to thennegative. Forty-four (81%) respondents indicated that their institutions would welcome federal funds to be used solely for improvement of freshman English programs, and ten (19%) indicated they would not welcome such funds. Of those institutions which indicated they would welcome federal funds for the stated purpose, twenty-one (58%) prefer said funds for independent use with no direct 87 COOperation with another institution; four (11%) would prefer such funds as part of a state-wide project; and eleven (31%) showed a preference for receiving federal funds as part of a COOperating group of institutions, the make-up of which the respondent would determine. The directors were asked if they would allow the writer of this study to identify their responses to questions on federal funding in a prOposal to the U.S. Office of Education, a proposal which would seek increased federal aid for develOpment of improved freshman English programs across the country. Forty—three (84%) replied 'yes;' eight (16%) replied 'no.‘ Fifty (83%) institutions reporting indicated that their English department offered an advanced composition course at the undergraduate level, not including honors courses; ten (17%) had no such course. Fifty (83%) institutions maintain they offer a creative writing course at the undergraduate level, no including honors courses; ten (17%) do not. A program-wide syllabus is employed by thirty (51%) of the responding institutions while twenty—nine (49%) do not have a program—wide syllabus for freshman English. Where institutions do have a program-wide syllabus, the following is true: three (19%) report the syllabus is prepared by the director alone; fourteen (70%) indicated the syllabus is made up by a committee; and twenty (74%) reported the syllabus is revised at least annually. Active 88 instructors within the freshman English program contribute to the formulation of the syllabus at twenty-eight (97%) of the twenty-nine institutions which responded to this particular question. Where a program-wide syllabus is used, the smallest unit of time for which the syllabus Specified the material to be covered ranges from less than ten minutes to multi- week units. One (5%) institution's syllabus Specifies less than ten minutes; one (5%) specifies from ten to thirty minutes of class time; seven (32%) specify for one full class period at a time; five (23%) Specify the material for one week of classes as the smallest unit of time accounted for by the department syllabus; and eight (36%) reported their respective plans prescribe for one multi-week unit of classes. And further, where a program-wide syllabus is used, twenty-one (88%) institutions reported that their syllabus prescribes for one term at a time while two (12%) reported it does not. Nine (53%) reported that their freshman English syllabus prescribes for the entire length of the program at one time while eight (47%) reported it did not. When asked if instructors within the freshman English programs are allowed to establish their own objectives for their individual sections, forty-seven (82%) replied in the affirmative; ten (18%) replied in the negative. Twenty-two (45%) of the reSponding institutions indi- cated that their department provides freshman English students 89 with a list of Specific objectives to be met by the students. Twenty—seven (55%) reported no such practice. The directors were asked if their reSpective depart— ments attempt to group freshman English students in classes according to various criteria. The group responded in four cases (8%) the students were grouped according to stated interest; forty-six (92%) did not. Twenty-five (42%) reported the group students according to ability; thirty-four (58%) did not use ability as a criterion for grouping. Two (4%) institutions reported grouping students by their academic majors; forty—eight (96%) do not group freshman English students according to academic majors. The pretest-posttest technique of evaluating students' comparative progress at the end of the term is used by nine (16%) of the institutions; forty-seven (84%) reported no such practice. Seven (13%) institutions use the pretest- posttest technique at the end of the program; forty-five (87%) indicated they do not use this technique to evaluate the students' comparative progress at the end of the program. Fifty—five (92%) of the respondents reported that passing or failing a student within their respective pro- grams is the result of evaluation by the student's classroom instructor only. Five (8%) indicated that someone other ‘than the student's classroom instructor is also involved. Twenty-two (39%) institutions indicated that a satudent's success within their respective programs is 9O normally compared to the prediction of his success according to entrance examination and/or other pre-enroll- ment examinations. Thirty-five (61%) indicated no such practice. When asked if it is standard procedure within the various departments of English to provide the students with an Opportunity to present a written evaluation of the freshman English course, twenty—three (40%) indicated it was; thirty—five (60%) indicated it was not. Twenty-one (37%) institutions indicated that they can identify by name those high schools in their general area which tend to produce the better students for their respective programs. Twenty—five (43%) indicated they were unable to make that distinction. Twelve (20%) departments reported they have tested the hypothesis that freshman English classes can be large lecture groups of one hundred or more without becoming less effective than the same instruction presented to groups of twenty to thirty students. Forty-eight (80%) institu- tions reported they have not tested this hypothesis. Only one (1.8%) institution reports that they have run a comparative analysis of competency levels of their students in an attempt to determine which term benefits the students most in terms of the departmental objectives. The other fifty-three (98.2%) respondents reported following no such procedure. Ni. - «Ju ‘A ‘0! “a nu. ne- \ \Q‘ Q 91 Asked if they believe that the same written piece could receive three different grades if graded by three different instructors in the department, two (3%) schools replied 'no;' forty—six (77%) replied that 'it is possible;' and twelve (20%) replied that 'it was likely.‘ From a question related to testing of incoming freshman students, the following results were obtained; seventeen (31%) attempt to determine if the students have eXperience with term papers; thirty—seven (69%) do not. Fourteen (27%) make the same type of investigation regarding correct dictionary usage; thirty—eight (63%) do not; History of the English Language eXperience is uncovered by nine (18%) of the institutions, forty-two (82%) do not attempt it; eleven (22%) departments attempt to determine the level of eXperience their incoming freshmen have had with introductory linguistics while thirty-eight (78%) do not; and thirty (57%) responding institutions claim to test entering freshmen regarding their eXperience with basic elements of logic while twenty-three (43%) do not. The same matter treated differently is seen in the question which sought to determine which of the above areas of the discipline are included in the actual instruc- tion. Forty-six (82%) include a unit on writing research papers while ten (18%) do not; fourteen (27%) have a unit on correct dictionary usage, and twenty (39%) do not; fifteen (31%) teach a unit on History of the Language while 92 thirty—three (69%) do not; introductory linguistics is included in freshman English at eleven (22%) of the reporting institutions and is not included at thirty- eight (78%) other reporting institutions. Thirty (57%) schools teach a unit on basic elements of logic. Twenty- three (43%) do not include basic elements of logic in their freshman English course. No institution of the fifty-two reSponding indicated the use of closed circuit television in teaching freshman English. Programmed texts are used by nine (17%) of the schools; auto—tutorial facilities are employed by ten (18%) of the schools responding; no school of fifty responding indicated the use of computer assisted instruc- tion; thirty-one (55%) reported the use of films; twenty- six (46%) use guest Speakers; and eleven (21%) make use of field trips. Some instruction in Speech preparation and delivery is included in the freshman English programs of sixteen (27%) institutions. Forty-three (73%) schools reported that speech is not part of their program. Instruction in poetry is part of the freshman English program at forty-nine (82%) responding institutions but is not part of the program at the other eleven (18%) schoOls which reSponded to this question. Thirty-one (62%) of the institutions include instruc- tion in drama (not meaning actual acting itself) in their 93 programs while nineteen (38%) indicated no such material in the course. At thirty (52%) of the reporting institutions an honors course may be substituted for the standard freshman English course. Such is not the case at twenty-eight (48%) other institutions which reported. Remedial courses for students not ready for the standard freshman English program are offered at twenty- five (42%) of the institutions but not at the other thirty- four (58%) reporting schools. Forty-three (80%) departments report they make it possible for an entering freshman to be given advanced standing within the program or exemption from the program entirely. Eleven (20%) others who reported did not provide this Option. When a student is allowed to by—pass any or all of the freshman English program, he is required at twenty- seven (59%) institutions to make up an equal number of credit-hours in other classwork. Nineteen (41%) institutions do not make this stipulation. Where a student must make up a number of credit- hours equal to those he by-passed, there are certain options Open to him. Eighteen (67%) schools report he must make up the hours in English courses only. Twelve (55%) of twenty-two responding institutions indicated he may make up the credit—hours in English courses or any other courses. on. '4- - a-v bu O , be- I‘Qa .~_I l . ‘. .A c... . v. _ \ u. U IIAA. ~‘_:: 94 Three (18%) of seventeen reporting institutions stipulate he must make up the hours by taking the honors course in English. Eight (13%) of sixty reporting institutions revealed that they normally allow a student's written work to be graded by some person other than the student's classroom instructor. The other fifty-two (87%) schools do not follow this practice. Part of a student's final grade in freshman English is based on his composition skills. Three (6%) schools base less than twenty-five percent on it; nine (18%) schools base between twenty-five and fifty percent of a student's grade Upon his composition skills. Twenty-eight (55%) base between fifty and seventy-five percent on composition skills; and eleven (22%) schools base the student's grade over seventy-five percent on composition skills. Part of a student's final grade in freshman English is also based on his literary interpretation skills. Seventeen (34%) institutions base less than twenty-five percent on the grade of literary interpretation skills. Twenty-two (44%) institutions base between twenty-five and fifty percent of the grade on literary interpretation skills. Eleven (22%) schools base fifty to seventy-five percent of a student's final grade on his literary interpreation skills. None of the fifty schools responding to this question indicated basing more than seventy—five 95 percent of the grade on the student's literary inter- pretation skills. The approximate percentage of failing grades given each term by the schools reSponding to the questionnaire is contained in the following information which is broken down term by term. In the first term, seven (12%) schools reported a failure rate less than five percent. Eleven (19%) reported a ten to fifteen percent failure rate. Another eleven (19%) institutions reported a failure rate of fifteen to twenty percent. The twenty to twenty—five percent failure rate the first term includes four (7%) institutions; and two (4%) schools reported a failure rate of over twenty—five percent. In the second term, twelve (21%) fail less than five percent. Twenty-two (39%) fail between five and ten percent. Fourteen (25%) reported a failure rate of ten to fifteen percent. No institution responded with a failure rate of over twenty—five percent during the second term. Those institutions on the quarter system provide this third set of data regarding failure rates. In the third term, fifty-one (89%) reported a failure rate less than five percent. Four (7%) schools reported a failure rate of five to ten percent, and two (4%) reported rates of ten to fifteen percent. No school reported a failure rate of over fifteen percent during the third term. 96 The number of compositions a student is normally eXpected to write during his freshman English career ranges from less than ten to over thirty. Eleven (19%) departments reported requiring less than ten compositions. Twenty-one (36%) required between ten and fifteen. Sixteen (27%) required fifteen to twenty. Five (8%) schools required twenty to twenty—five; three (5%) required twenty-five to thirty, and another three (5%) required over thirty compositions. Twenty-six (48%) English departments required that less than twenty-five percent of the compositions be written in—class. Twenty (37%) required twenty-five to fifty percent but not less than seventy-five percent in- class, and none required over seventy-five percent to be written in-class. Excluding research papers, the approximate average length of compositions written by the students of those institutions responding to the questionnaire is treated as two categories--in-class and out-of—class compositions. Five (9%) programs averaged in-class themes of less than two hundred words. Another five (9%) averaged between two hundred and four hundred. Thirty-four (60%) received in-class themes of four hundred to six hundred words. Ten (18%) averaged six hundred to eight hundred words, and three (5%) averaged over eight hundred words. Ten (18%) institutions received out-of—class com— positions averaging less than four hundred words. Five 97 (9%) average four hundred to six hundred words. Twenty— six (47%) averaged six hundred to eight hundred words. Thirteen (23%) received eight hundred to one thousand words, and three (5%) averaged over one thousand words per out—of—class composition. Approximate percentages of all undergraduate hours taught by the various English departments responding as compared to the number of hours devoted to freshman English indicated that no school spent less than ten percent of its total department load on freshman English. Five (9%) reported freshman English takes between ten and twenty percent of available time. Nine (16%) report spending twenty to thirty percent on freshman English. Twenty—one (37%) spent thirty to forty percent, twelve (21%) spent forty to fifty percent, and ten (18%) reported they spend over fifty percent of their available department load time on freshman English staffing. The following data came in response to a question which asked how many of the total full-time department members teach at least one section of freshman English during the year. Two (3%) institutions reported less than twenty-five percent of their members teach in the freshman English program. Six (10%) related that the number is between twenty-five and fifty percent. Eight (13%) reported fifty to seventy-five percent, and forty—five (74%) reported that over seventy-five percent of their 98 full-time department members teach at least one section of freshman English at some time during the year. Of those persons who teach at least one section of Freshman English during the year, fourteen (27%) institu- tions revealed that less than ten percent have their doctorate. Eleven (21%) schools reported ten to twenty percent doctorates. Five (10%) schools said twenty to thirty percent; six (12%) reported forty to fifty percent, and eleven (21%) schools reported that over fifty percent of those persons who teach freshman English at some time during the year hold doctorates. Those persons who hold a master's degree and teach freshman English are tabulated as follows: two (4%) institutions had less than ten percent of their freshman staff with master's degrees. The ten to twenty percent master's peOple category received no institution's claim, nor did the thirty to forty percent category. The twenty to thirty percent category, however, was reported by one (2%) school, and the forty to fifty percent category was supported by five (11%) schools. Thirty-seven (82%) institutions reported that their freshman English classes were taught by persons, over fifty percent of whom hold master's degrees. For purposes of this study, academic rank of those who teach freshman English was broken first into three divisions--full professor, associate professor, and assistant professor. 99 Seventeen (41%) schools reported less than ten percent of those who teach freshman English hold the rank of full professor. Six (15%) reported ten to fifteen per— cent hold that rank. Eight (20%) reported fifteen to twenty percent full professors teaching freshman English. Two (5%) reported between twenty and twenty-five percent full professors, and eight (20%) reported that over twenty- five percent of those who teach in the freshman English program hold the rank of full professor. Thirteen (25%) institutions reported that less than ten percent of those who teach freshman English hold the rank of associate professor. Fourteen (26%) reported ten to fifteen percent associates. Six (11%) reported fifteen to twenty percent associates. Another six (11%) indicated twenty to twenty-five percent of their freshman English staff held associate professorships, and fourteen (26%) reported that over twenty-five percent of their freshman English staff held the associate professor rank. Six (12%) English departments reported that less than ten percent of their freshman English staff held the rank of assistant professor. Three (6%) indicated ten to fifteen percent assistant professors. Four (8%) claimed fifteen to twenty percent. Three (6%) reported twenty to twenty-five percent; and thirty—three (67%) reported that over twenty-five percent of their freshman English staff held the rank of assistant professor. The rank of instructor was treated as a separate category and resulted in the following data: thirteen on ‘04 Q'A‘ ..v~ t ‘ IA‘. . ..Au . vou~ . Oh.- - A» t? 1%.. ' . 'VJ‘R- .- ...a. I'.’ .1 s. " ‘ 'r A; . fl‘; 7... "1‘ \ I H n \. “ZS-ik‘ ”My”. "J 100 (23%) schools reported that less than ten percent of their freshman English staff held the rank of instructor. Fourteen (25%) reported that ten to fifteen percent of their freshman English staff were instructors. Eleven (20%) were in the twenty—five to forty percent category. Another eleven (20%) were in the forty to sixty percent range. Five (9%) reported in the sixty to seventy-five percent range, and two (3%) institutions reported that over seventy-five percent of those persons who taught freshman English held the rank of instructor. Twenty-three (39%) institutions reported they have analyzed their students' progress or some other factor in an attempt to identify their most effective teachers. Thirty-six (61%) had not done so. Nineteen (34%) institutions reported they have analyzed their students' progress or some other factor in an attempt to identify their least effective teachers. Thirty-seven (66%) had not done so. The first question regarding in—service training called for six separate responses. The results in each of the six response categories are as follows: four (8%) reported that their instructors received in—service training in learning theory. Forty—six (92%) reported they did not. Three (6%) institutions reported their instructors in freshman English received in-service training in tests and ‘1 0.. F. .- ‘uu . “a “v ‘n- u '. 101 measurements. Forty-five (94%) reported their in-service did not include tests and measurements. Twelve (23%) reported their instructors received in-service training in uses of newer media. Forty (77%) other institutions reported their instructors did not receive in-service training in newer media. Three (6%) departments related that communication theory was part of the in-service training for their freshman English instructors. Forty—six (94%) reported no such material in their in—service program. Seventeen (34%) institutions affirmed composition evaluation techniques as part of their in—service training program. Thirty-three (66%) indicated no in-service training in composition evaluation techniques. Seventeen (34%) directors reported their freshman English instructors received in—service training in improved teaching techniques. Thirty-five (67%) reported no improved teaching material as part of their in-service program. Where freshman English instructors receive in—service training, nine (40%) institutions reported the duration of training to be one day or less per term. Six (27%) schools ijuiicated that in-service training amounted to two days per: term. Two (9%) departments reported three days of in- serwnice training per term, and five (23%) departments repcurted four or more days in-service training per term. 102 The number of graduate assistants employed in teaching freshman English at the member institutions of this group is as follows: fifty-three (95%) schools indicated they employed no graduate assistants in their programs. Three (5%) schools reported employing less than ten graduate assistants, and no member of this group of institutions reported using more than ten graduate assistants. Grouquwo (institutions which offer a four year degree and some advanced degree) This group consists of seventy-two institutions which completed the questionnaire and specifically met the established criteria. Eight other institutions which returned the questionnaire but failed in some way to fully meet the established criteria will be considered at the close of this chapter. The breakdown of the seventy-two institutions whose answers to the questionnaire were compiled in this section of the presentation of data is as follows: eight (11%) of the institutions reported one thousand undergraduate students or less. Fifteen (20%) of the group reported undergraduate student populations between one thousand and tam) thousand. Ten (14%) institutions were in the two tfluyusand to three thousand category; a like number of institutions were in the three to five thousand group, auui the five thousand to eight thousand undergraduate 103 student group replied included fourteen (19%) institutions. There are fifteen (21%) institutions of over eight thousand undergraduate students in this group. In response to the question which sought to determine the length of time it has been since each freshman English program underwent a major revision there came the following: twenty-seven (38%) of the reporting institutions replied that their program had undergone major revision in the past year. Seventeen (24%) institutions reported revision two years ago; twelve (l7%) reported a three year period since major revision, five (7%) institutions had not brought about a major revision for four years, and ten (14%) of the institutions reported that their respective programs in freshman English have not undergone major revision for five years or more. Fifty-two (72%) institutions in group one reported that their respective freshman English programs normally require a full academic year to complete. Twenty (28%) of the institutions reported that their programs are not one full academic year. Of those institutions which indicated that their freshman English programs are not one full academic year in length, two (13%) require one quarter, five (31%) require two quarters, and eight (50%) require one semester and one (6%) requires a trimester. Twenty-seven (42%) of the institutions reSponding to tfiu3o Are instructors within your program allowed to establish their own objectives for their own individual sections? 40 Yes 24 NO Does your department provide your freshman English students with a list of specific objectives to be met by the students? 35 Yes 32 NO Does your department attempt to group your freshman English students in classes according to: 6 Yes 52 No their stated interests? 30 Yes 37 No ability? W '- 5 Yes 54 NO their academic majors? Does your department use the pretest-posttest technique to evaluate your students' comparative progress: 12 Yes 55 No at the end of each term? 5 Yes 53 NO at the end of the program? Is passing or failing a student within your program the result of evaluation by the student's classroom instruc- tor only? 69 Yes 3 NO Is a student's success within the program normally compared tO the prediction of his success according to entrance examinations and/or other pre-enrollment examinations? 27 Yes 44 NO —— ————- 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 201 Is it standard procedure within your program to provide the students with an Opportunity to present a written evaluation of the course? 27 Yes 40 NO Can you identify by name those high schools in your general area which tend to produce the least capable students in your program? 33 Yes 36 No Can you identify by name those high schools in your general area which tend to produce the better students in your program? 42 Yes 26 NO Have you tested the hypothesis that freshman English classes can be large lecture groups Of one hundred or more without becoming less effective than the same instruction presented to groups Of twenty to thirty? 29 Yes 40 NO Have you run a comparative analysis Of competency levels of your students in an attempt to determine which term benefits the students most in terms Of your departmental Objectives? 7 Yes 60 No DO you believe that in your department the same written piece could receive three different grades if graded by three different instructors? 2 NO 54 it is possible 15 it is likely Does your department attempt to determine what percentage Of incoming freshman students have had experience with: 19 Yes 48 No writing research papers? 15 Yes 51 No correct dictionary usage? 10 Yes 56 No History of the English Language? II Yes 56 No introductory linguistics? 8 Yes 59 No basic elements of logic? I 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. DOGS SIEIH I N O I .5 an. U 0 m w your Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes your 202 freshman English program include a unit on: 13 No writing research papers? 20 No correct dictionary usage? 54 No History Of the English Language? 47 No introductory linguistics? 25 NO basic elements of logic? program normally make use of any or all Of the following: N N C) N ...a I [\J Ch OI Does tion 10 Does tion 51 DOGS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes your 65 No closed circuit television? 50 No programmed texts? fig 60 No auto-tutorial facilities? ' 67 No computer assisted instruction? 39 No films? _44— No guest Speakers? 59 NO field trips? freshman English program include some instruc- ; in speech preparation and delivery? Yes your in poetry? Yes your IRE ',_ 62 No freshman English program include~some instruc- 19 No program include some instruction in drama, not including actual acting itself? 50 Yes 20 No Does your department offer an honors course which may be substituted for the standard freshman English course? 35 Yes 35 NO Does your department Offer a remedial course for students not ready for the standard freshman English program? 21 Yes 51 _——_ NO May an entering freshman be given advanced standing within the program or exemption from the program as a result of: 55 Yes 10 NO When a student is allowed to by-pass any or all of the freshman English program, is he then required to make up an equal number of credit-hours in other classwork? 32 m Yes 29 NO 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 203 Where a student must make up a number of credit-hours equal to those he by—passed in freshman English, what Options are Open to him? 13 Yes 14 NO He must make up the hours in English courses only. 22 Yes 3 No He may make up the credit—hours in English courses or any other courses. 0 Yes 16 No He must make up the hours by taking the honors course. Does your department normally allow a student's written work to be graded by any person other than his classroom instructor? 5 Yes 67 Approximately what percentage is based on evaluation Of his 1 less than 25% 24 ll 25 to 50% 0 b.) Approximately what percentage is based on evaluation of his Skills? 29 less than 25% ll _22 25 to 50% 3 N0 of a student's final grade composition skills? 50 to 75% over 75% of a student's final grade literary interpretation 50 to 75% over 75% What is the approximate percentage of failing grades given: (lst term) (2nd term) (3rd term if applies) 19 less than 5% 21 less than 5% 6 less than 5% 20 5 to 10% 19 5 to 10% 2 5 to 10% 9 10 to 15% 8 10 to 15% 2 10 to 15% 9 15 to 20% O 15 to 20% O 15 to 20% 2 20 to 25% 2 20 to 25% 0 20 to 25% 2 over 25% 1 over 25% 0 over 25% Approximately how many compositions would a student normally write during participation in the full freshman English program? 6 less than 10 10 14 lo to 15 3 34 15 to 20 2 Approximately what percentage in—class only? 33 less than 25% 2 26 25 to 50% l 7 20 to 25 25 to 30 over 30 Of compositions are written 50 to 75% over 75% ‘01 -:. -.'u 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 204 Excluding research papers, what is the approximate length of compositions written by your students? (In—class compositions) (Out-of—class compositions) 2 less than 200 words 4 less than 400 words 39 200 to 400 words 31 400 to 600 words 19 400 to 600 words 13 600 to 800 words __6 600 to 800 words 8 800 to 1,000 words 5‘ over 800 words 2 over 1,000 words Approximately what percentage of all undergraduate hours taught by your department go toward teaching within the freshman English program? 1 less than 10% 14 30 to 40% 4 10 to 20% 21 40 to 50% 8 20 to 30% I4 over 50% Approximately what percentage Of the total number of full—time department members teach at least one section of freshman English during the year? 11 less than 25% 14 50 to 75% ll 25 to 50% 24 over 75% Of those persons who teach at least one section of freshman English during the year, approximately what percentage hold: (Ph.D) (Master's) 18 less than 10% 2 less than 10% I3 10 to 20% l 10 to 20% II 20 to 30% 3 20 to 30% 12 30 to 40% 7 30 to 40% 8 40 to 50% 4 40 to 50% 7 over 50% 41 over 50% Approximately what percentage of those persons who teach at least one section of freshman English per year hold the rank of: (full professor) (associate) (assistant) 31 less than 10% 29 less than 10% 10 less than 10% I 14 10 to 15% 15 10 to 15% 10 10 to 15% r 3 15 to 20% 5 15 to 20% 7 15 to 20% “'6'“ 20 to 25% ""“5'” 20 to 25% " 7'" 20 to 25% 8 over 25% 11 over 25% 33 over 25% 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 205 What percentage of your staff members who teach at least one section of freshman English during the year hold the rank of Instructor? 12 less than 10% 14 40 to 60% 17 10 to 25% 9 60 to 75% 10 25 to 40% 4 over 75% Have you analyzed student progress or any other factor in an attempt to identify your: 25 Yes 36 No your mOst effective classroom teachers? 31 Yes 37 No your least effective classroom teachers? I DO instructors within your program receive in—service training with regard to: 8 Yes 55 No learning theory? 8 Yes 55 No tests and measurements? 13 Yes 50 No uses of newer media? 7 Yes 56 No communication theory? '35_°Yes "32"No composition evaluation? 35 Yes 32 NO improved teaching techniques? If your instruction staff does receive in—service training, what is the duration of the training? 7 one day or less per term 2 3 days per term 3 2 days per term 24 4 or more days per term How many graduate teaching assistants work within your program? 30 none 4 25 to 50 23 less than 10 O 50 to 75 ll 10 to 25 O 75 to 100 '.__- 3 over 100 APPENDIX G APPENDIX G A SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE COMPLETE WITH THE FINAL COMBINED TOTALS FROM INSTITUTIONS IN GROUPS ONE AND TWO INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE QUE TIONNAIRE All responses are constructed. At no time will you be required to write out an answer. Place an “‘ in the Space provided for the answer to questions you are able and willing to answer. Write "NA" in the Space provided for the answer to questions which you feel do not apply to your institution. Place no mark at all in the Space provided for the answer to any question which you do not care to answer. You are not asked to explain this type of reSponse. Institution Your name (Optional) 1. What title do you hold? Director of Freshman English Department Chairman (or equivalent) 2. How many undergraduates are enrolled at your institution? a§§u_less than 1,000 _lg__3,ooo to 5,000 ._33_ 1,000 to 2,000 _”Ig_ 5,000 to 8,000 13 2,000 to 3,000 15 over 8,000 3. Does your institution offer: _“___Yes No an undergraduate English major? Yes N a Master of Arts in Teaching? Yes No a Master's in English? Yes No a Ph.D. in English? Yes No graduate degrees but none of the above? 206 10. 11. 207 How long has it been since your freshman English program underwent what you would call a major revision? 54 1 year __Z__4 years 19 2 years 26 5 years or more 3 3 years Does your standard freshman English program normally require a full academic year to complete? 97 Yes _}6 No If your response to question five was Mg, how long does it normally take a student to complete your freshman English program? 5 1 quarter 14 1 semester m 5 2 quarters l l trimester Do you have any evidence which indicates that most students would continue to benefit from a program of extended duration? 50 Yes 66 NO If any of the following approximately describes the make-up of your freshman English program, indicate which one? 57 grammar, composition, and literature 9 grammar and composition but no literature 58 composition and literature but no grammar Which of the following best describes your grading system? 125 A, B, C, D, F 2 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, etc. 1 Pass—Fail 0 Satisfactory—Unsatisfactory 3 Credit—NO Credit 2 none Of these What is the average number Of students per class within your freshman English program? 1 less than 15 46 25 to 30 _18 15 to 20 2 30 to 40 _63 20 to 25 2 over 40 Do you regard any or all of the following as major factors in determining the number Of students per class within your freshman English program? 97 Yes 13 No a relatively firm predetermined number 7I Yes _l§ No the ratio Of students to available staff IE3I'Yes _E§T'No the number of compositions an instruc- . tor can normally be eXpected to grade. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. How many hours a week do your 1.9.. 7 01 I H Does 1 hour 2 hours 3 hours 208 classes meet? 4 hours 5 hours 16 .__8_. 0 6 hours or more your freshman English program have a supervisor other than the department chairman? 71 Yes 62 No What is the director Of freshman English"s (or chairman acting as director) normal teaching load per week including all subjects he or she teaches? 0 28 0 hours per week I 1 to 3 hours per week 56 47 7 to 9 hours per week over 9 hours per week —-—-——- 4 to 6 hours per week Does the direCtor (or chairman acting as director) teach at least one section of freshman English during the school year? 6.4 Yes 66 NO Has the director (or chairman acting as director) received formal training in any or all of the following: 66 1.)... hw'I-J Yes Yes I Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 \D m \l 03 O I KC 4) I ON \1 \l I“ No No NO No No NO learning theory tests and measurements statistics computer assisted instruction use of newer media communication theory Are you familiar with any or all of the following: .16.. 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 43 42 4s. 0.) CO U1 NO NO Themes, Theories, and Therapy Albert Kitzhaber "A PrOposal for the Abolition of Freshman English as it is now Commonly Taught" by Warner Rice. "Research in Written Composition" by Braddock, Lloyd—Jones, and Shoer. The College Teaching of English, John C. Gerber, editor. "A Study of Freshman English, An Informal Study" by Harrison Hoblitzelle. by During the 1968—69 academic year, did your institution receive federal funds to be used solely for improvement of your freshman English program? 3 Yes 127 ————- NO 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 209 Did your institution apply for federal funds to be used solely for improvement of your freshman English program during the 1968-69 academic year? 3 Yes 121 NO Would your institution welcome federal funds to be used solely for improvement of your freshman English program? 97 Yes 21 No If your answer to question twenty was Egg, would you prefer the funds to be made available for use: 56 independently (in no direct COOperation with another institution). 7 as part of a state—wide project. 24 as part Of a COOperating groups of institutions, the make—up of which you would determine. Will you allow the writer of this questionnaire to identify your responses to questions 20 and 21 in a prOposal to the U. S. Office of Education, a prOposal which would seek increased federal aid for develOpment of improved freshman English programs across the country? 97 Yes 16 No Does your English department Offer an advanced composition course at the undergraduate level? (Not including honors courses.) 117 Yes 13 No Does your English department offer a creative writing course at the undergraduate level? (Not including honors courses.) 116 Yes 15 No Are your freshman English classes taught according to a program~wide syllabus? 77 Yes 51 NO If your reSponse to question 25 was Yes, 12 Yes 49 No Is the syllabus prepared by the director only? 43 Yes 13 No Is the syllabus prepared by a committee? __§_ Yes 3 No Do active instructors within the program contribute to formulation of the syllabus? 59 Yes 12 No Is the syllabus revised at least -annually? 27. 28, 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 210 Where a program-wide syllabus is used, what is the smallest unit of time for which the syllabus Specifies the material to be covered? 3 Less than 10 minutes of class time. 4 10 to 30 minutes of class time. 20 One full class period. 13_ One week of classes. —25. One multi-week unit of classes. Where a program-wide syllabus is used, does that syllabus prescribe for: A; 61 Yes 4 No one term at a time? E 23 Yes 14 No the entire length of the program at one time? Are instructors within your program allowed to establish their own objectives for their own individual sections? & 87 Yes 34 No Does your department provide your freshman English students with a list of specific objectives to be met by the students? 57 Yes 59 NO Does your department attempt to group your freshman English students in classes according to: 10 Yes 98 No their stated interests? *— 55 Yes 71 No ability? 7 Yes 102 No their academic majors? l Does your department use the pretest-posttest technique to evaluate your students' comparative progress: _21 Yes 102 No at the end of each term? 12 Yes 98 No at the end of the program? Is passing or failing a student within your program the result of evaluation by the student's classroom instructor only? 124 Yes 8 No Is a student's success within the program normally com- pared to the prediction of his success according to entrance examinations and/or other pre—enrollment examinations? 49 Yes 79 No m 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 211 Is it standard procedure within your program to provide the students with an Opportunity to present a written evaluation of the course? 50 Yes 75 No Can you identify by name those high schools in your general area which tend to produce the least capable students in your program? 54 Yes 72 No Can you identify bynname those high schools in your general area which tend to produce the better students in your program? 75 Yes 51 No lave you tested the hypothesis that freshman English classes can be large lecture groups of one hundred or more without becoming less effective than the same instruction presented to groups of twenty to thirty? 41 Yes 88 No Have you run a comparative analysis of conpetency levels of your students in an attempt to determine which term benefits the students most in terms of your departmental objectives? 8 Yes 113 NO Do you believe that in your department the same written piece could receive three different grades if graded by three different instructors? _4_ No :19“ it is possible 27 it is likely Does your department attempt to determine what percentage of incoming freshman students have had eXperience with: _36 Yes 85 No writing research papers? ’29" Yes 89 No correct dictionary usage? ‘19‘ Yes 98 No History of the English Language? 19 Yes 99 No introductory linguistics? 14 Yes 104 No basic elements of logic? a ' ‘ilk . ‘1 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Does 75 1 WM HQ 1 4 \l DOGS your Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes your 212 freshman English prOgram include a unit on: 23 No writing research papers? 40 No correct dictionary usage? 87 No History of the English Language? 85 No introductory linguistics? 48 No basic elements of logic? program normally make use of any or all of the fOllowing: N KDN l {~13 U1 N U1 [\J M O U 0 (D U) tion 26 Does tion 100 Does Yes 117 No clsed circuit television? Fm Yes 93 No programmed texts? . Yes 105 No auto-tutorial facilities? Yes 118 No computer assisted instruction? Yes 64 No films? Yes 74 No guest speakers? Yes 100 No field trips? your freshman English program include some instruc— [ in speech preparation and delivery? “ Yes 105 No your freshman English program include some instruc- in poetry? Yes your 30 iio program include some instruction in drama, not including actual acting itself? 81 Yes 39 No Does your department offer an honors course which may be substituted for the standard freshman English course? 65 Yes 63 No Does your department offer a remedial course for students not ready for the standard freshman English program? 46 Yes 85 No May an entering freshman be given advanced standing within the program or exemption from the program as a result of: 98 Yes 21 No When a student is allowed to by-pass any or all of the freshman English program, is he than required to make up an equal number of credit-hours in other classwork? 59 Yes 48 ”-——_ NO 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 57. 213 Where a student must make up a number of credit-hours equal to those he by-passed in freshman English, what Options are Open to him? 31 43. 3 m Does work room 13 Approximately what percentage is based on evaluation of his 4 20 Approximately what percentage is based on evaluation of his Yes Yes Yes 231‘: 13 1 ~— 1 T i O O 30 No He must make up the hours in English courses only. He may make up the credit—hours in English courses or any other courses. He must make up the hours by taking the honors course. your department normally allow a student's written to be graded by any person other than his class— instructor? Yes less than 25% 25 to 50% skill? 46 less than 25% 44 25 to 50% 119 No of a student's final grade composition skills? 52 —— 41 50 to 75% over 75% of a student's final grade literary interpretation N N 50 to 75% over 75% LA) What is the approximate percentage Of failing grades given: (lst term) 26 1 231213 4. Approximately how many composition would a normally write during participation in the less than 5 to 10% 10 to 15% 15 to 20% 20 to 25% over 25% ['0 56 English program? 17 less than 10 35 10 to 15 50 15 to 20 Approximately what percentage in—class only? 59 46 less than 25 to 50% 25- (2nd term) (3rd term if applies) 43 less than 5% 57 less than 5% 41 5 to 10% 6 5 to 10% 22 10 to 15% 4 10 to 15% 7 15 to 20% 0 15 to 20% 2 20 to 25% 0 20 to 25% 2 over 25% 0 over 25% student full freshman 15 20 to 25 6 25 to 30 5 over 30 of compositions are written 10 50 to75% 7 over 75% v.“— 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 214 Excluding research papers, what is the approximate average length of compositions written by your students? (In—class compositions) (Out—of—class compositions) 7 less than 200 words 14 less than 400 words 44 200 to 400 words 26 400 to 600 words "5'3" 400 to 600 words "39 600 to 800 words 16 600 to 800 words 21 800 to 1,000 words over 800 words 5 over 1,000 words Approximately what percentage of all undergraduate hours taught by your department go toward teaching within the freshman English program? 1 less than 10% _2§__30 to 40% _ 9 10 to 20% 33 40 to 50% 17 20 to 30% 24 over 50% Approximately what percentage of the total number of full—time department members teach at least one section of freshman English during the year? 13 less than 25% 22 50 to 75% 17 25 to 50% 69 Over 75% Of those persons who teach at least one section of fresh- man English during the year, approximately what per- centage hold: (Ph.D.) (Master's) 32 less than 10% 4 less than 10% 24 10 to 20% l 10 to 20% 16 20 to 30% 4 20 to 30% 18 30 to 40% 7 30 to 40% l 40 to 50% 9 40 to 50% 18 over 50% 78 over 50% Approximately what percentage of those persons who teach at least one section of freshman English per year hold the rank of: (full professor) (associate) (assistant) 48 less than 10% 42 less than 10% 16 less than 10% 20 10 to 15% 29 10 to 15% 13 10 to 15% 11 15 to 20% II 15 to 20% ll 15 to 20% 8 20 to 25% ll 20 to 25% 10 20 to 25% 16 over 25% 25 over 25% 66 over 25% 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 215 What percentage of your staff members who teach at least one section of freshman English during the year hold the rank of Instructor? 25 less than 10% 25 40 to 60% 31 10 to 25% 14 60 to 75% 21 25 to 40% 6 over 75% Have you analyzed student progress or any other factor in an attempt to identify your: 48 Yes 72 NO your most effective classroom g“ teachers? 50 Yes 74 No your least effective classroom teachers? Do instructors within your program receive in-service training with regard to: 12 Yes 101 NO learning theory? a 11 Yes 100 No tests and measurements? 5 25 Yes 90 No uses of newer media? 10 Yes 102__No communication theory? 52 Yes 65 No composition evaluation? 2 Yes 67 No improved teaching techniques? If your instruction staff does receive in-service training, what is the duration of the training? 16 one day or less per term 4 3 days per term 9 2 days per term 29 4 or more days per term How many graduate teaching assistants work within your program? _82__none 4 25 to 50 26 less than 10 0 50 to 75 ll 10 to 25 0 75 to 100 3 over 100 APPENDIX H APPENDIX H AN ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL RBSPONDENTS INSOFAR AS NUMBER, COMPLETENESS, AND REASONS FOR LACK OF COMPLETENESS ARE CONCERNED Here is an analysis of the completeness of responses received from the one hundred and sixty institutions which replied to the questionnaire: 142 were filled out in full. 3 were left blank. 15 were filled out only in part and cited one of the following reasons for not completing the questionnaire: 3 made freshman English Optional. 2 drOpped all freshman English requirements. 6 now include freshman English in a Humanities core. 3 now include freshman English as part of a literature sequence. 1 does not offer English courses. 216 APPENDIX I 217 imoa .m .umnmawuflmv mm.a Hm.m ma.m Ho.m mm.m mm.m am.m mm.m mcflaaommmflz .m moacmsomz mm.s Ho.m s¢.m mm.a oa.m sm.m mm.m as.a mam COHfimanUGSnH .w om.a as.o om.o ms.o om.o os.o mm.o ha.a umssmuo .m ms.HH ov.m mm.m ma.s No.0 mH.m mm.s m.oa mono: .m am.m mm.m om.m sm.m sm.m om.~ sm.m am.¢ moocouamm .o sm.m m.H mm.o mm.o as.o ma.o mw.o Ho.a magnummumm .o mm.a ms.m sm.a sm.a om.m ms.m am.m mm.m Hmaumumz .m . . . . . . . . onsaosuum Ho H mm 0 ma 0 pm 0 mm 0 mm O on o on o mam msoom .m m .:p m .gu a .gu m .:p m .:p a .gu Honum noflcmm .gmom N gmflamau H smflamcm mo muse Hofiaom .mmuoaocmom .cmEcmmHm "mcfluwuz mo mouoz ooo.a Mom muouum mo mumm mmonmm oza .mmmozommom .zmszmmmu mwmqqoo em wzHeHm: mo memo: azmmoome mzo mum mmommm so seam ozHommomm em