You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'literacies' tag.
Last night I wrote that there seemed to be a shift in yesterday’s meeting away from cut scores and to a discussion of what our writing work group thought more important. Well, today Ira Blake, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs, has been waving the “cut score” banner again this morning. She said that our work groups need to come up with cut scores where we should begin.
I just asked Ira Blake for a very clear statement about what are task was. I asked, “so, let me get this straight, the task of our work group is to come up with cut scores.” Her response, “yes.” Yes, she did say a lot about us being experts and our imput important and that it was important that we had discussions about what is college ready, but in the end, the task is a cut score. It will be interesting to see what will happen if our writing work group does not/refuses to come up with a cut score.
So, at today’s meeting of PaSSHE College Ready and Placement Work Group we’re hearing from Kathleen Howley, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs. At the moment, we’re talking about course numbering. Yes, course numbering. We were just given a handout showing course equivalencies and course numbers across the State System. As it turns out, Kutztown is the only campus that has Gen Ed courses–like composition–that begin with a zero (0) (ENG 022, 023, 025, etc.). According to Howley and Ira Blake (also Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs), it is Board of Governor policy that all introductory courses should be listed as 100 level courses. Apparently, 0-level courses are supposed to be “remedial” classes. So, despite the fact that equivalencies/transferability has already been established by a State organization TAOC (Transfer Articulation Oversight Committee), the assumption is being made by legislators and PaSSHE administration that we (KU) are giving college credit for remedial courses.
This just gets more and more amazing each day.
It’s been an interesting day here in Harrisburg as day one of PaSSHE’s College Ready and Placement Work Group comes to a close. Interesting because there has been a bit of a shift over the course of the day when it seemed like the sole purpose of this work group was going to be to choose one of the major standardized placement exams–COMPASS, ACCUPLACER, or ASSET (notice all of them are in all-caps)–as the standard for the whole State System. By the day’s end that imperative was less clear.
The day alternated between whole group sessions led by Vice Chancellor Jim Moran and break out sessions: math, writing, and reading. The general sessions were not super formal. Rather, they consisted of Moran making some preliminary comments and report-backs/questions from the break out groups. Initally Moran say that by the end of our two-days here in Harrisburg, he wanted us to come up with “baseline cut-scores” for each of the areas. In other words, we were supposed to come up with the scores that would determine when a student would be forced into “remedial” courses. The primary target was to “identify a standard across the system for college comp and intro to math. Moran said that this is part of a larger effort–a “two-pronged effort”–to standardize the State’s definition of “college ready” and to create a common set of criteria for college placement. The other prong is to standardize the entire State’s high school curriculum. Moran said that PA was one of only five states that does not have a standard curriculum across the state.
Our discussions were supposed to be guided by “all the research,” or at least the research that we were provided less than a week before today’s meeting. Most of this research was conducted by ACT and some organizations assosicated with college testing agencies. In fact, one of the key documents, “Rigor at Risk,” published by the ACT explicitly saw its study as a follow up to the federal government’s 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk. The report suggests that since the publication of A Nation at Risk,
almost every state has made significant efforts t o improve its educational system. Nearly a quarter-century later, in a climate in which U.S. workers are dealing with new forms of technology and facing challenges of a global economy, it is not only reasonable but increasingly urgent to ask: Have we succeeded in fulfilling the goals of A Nation at Risk? (ACT, “Rigor at Risk).
Of course we might draw attention to the fact that the 1983 study may have contributed to our current problems by narrowly defining curriculum to suit specific educational agendas. I think it would be useful to revisit John Trimbur’s “Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis” in the midst of this discussion.
Anyway, at several points in the discussion, Moran suggested that he would prefer one standard placement process across the State System. However, he stopped short of saying this was necessary. But, at several points he suggested that any “locally designed assessment” (directed self-placment being one of them) would need to demonstrate how the results could be compared to one of the standardized tests or standard State placement processes. He said that it would be up to the people responsible at that university to “assess whether or not it would be worth the effort” to demonstrate compatabilty. This approach seems very much like the State System’s buy-in to the ”Voluntary System of Accountability,” which I don’t have time to go into here.
There seems to be some pressure coming from the State Legislature on this score. Moran told us that “it would not surprise me if there is some move for legislative action on remediation.” In fact, he is giving testimony before the Republican Caucus tomorrow morning on precisely this topic.
The good thing about today’s process was the breakout sessions with other faculty across the State System. One of the most productive aspects of the day was that we talked about our different approaches to placement, different student bodies, and different configurations of composition (some universities have two semesters of comp, others just one). If anything, I think most members of this group are committed to keeping local control over the placement process. While no one was opposed to discussing the kind of skills and practices that are necessary for a student to succeed in our first-year composition classes, I remain concerned that the outcome of our work is beyond our control. For example, we could generate some very good principles and the State System could then turn around and look at the standardized tests that seem to reflect those principles. I am not suggesting that is what will happen, only one of my concerns.
I’ll have to leave it at that for now. I’m meeting some of my fellow compers for dinner. Hopefully, I’ll be back later with an update.
Late morning/lunch work “writing group” was interesting. Lots of discussion at the way placement happens at all 14 State System universities. Some have tests, but a couple institutions do variations of directed self-placement. Other universities do a portfolio system. There seems to be a general agreement in the writing group that it might be possible to lay out some consistencies across the 14 as to what we expect in college level writing, which is DIFFERENT from what you might find in a placement test. For example, flexibility in responding to different audiences; writing in different genres; incorporating research.
Yet, there is a wide range in the preparation of students across the State System schools. Jim Moran in clear that some universities WILL HAVE TO change the way they do placement…although he is not being specific as to which universities. Everything, however, points to directed self-placement as a “problem” that is not assessable in a way that will be consistent across all 14.
There seems to be a general “sense” at the table that we can distinguish between what we expect in college-level writing and what are some of the barriers students face (at least that’s how I am trying to argue the case). What comes up consistently is the lack of funding from the the State System to support best practices–such as required portfolios from all new students, or even the kind of directed self-placement we do at Kutztown.
Moran seems to be genuinely invested in the process, but is non-committal to guarantee funding to support best practices.
Just moments ago, we had a pretty heated debate over the question of “remediation” and what kind of courses we are talking about.
Yesterday was a great day at CCCCs. All four of the panels I went to were fantastic. I did make one change in my schedule. I didn’t go to “We Have Been Here Forever” as I initially planned. Instead, I went to the session, “Community Literacies and Deliberative Democracy In and Beyond the University,” with Eli Goldblatt, Juan Guerra, Michelle Kells, and Carlos Salinas. Our panel, “Labor Rhetoric and Academic Organizing,” went extremely well…we had a packed house, our papers worked incredibly well together, Eileen Schell posed several key questions in her response, and many audience members walked with us over to the Serrano Hotel for our Labor Caucus Interest Group meeting. More on all of this when I have a little time (right now I am sitting in the hotel lobby waiting for my ride to the airport).
I was really looking forward to being here this year…and my expectations were more than met. The non-panel discussions I had with people who I haven’t seen since the last CCCCs and colleagues I see on a more-or-less regular basis were invigorating…which is, after all, why we come to these conferences in the first place, right?
More to come!
After spending some time reading through all of the sessions running tomorrow, I think I have my schedule for tomorrow:
- 10:30: “From Textile Mills to the Entrepreneurial University: Confronting the Political Economics of Writing”
- 12:15: “We Have Been Here Forever: Towards a History of Composition(ist)s of Color Rewriting Rhetoric within and beyond NCTE/CCCC”
- 1:45: “‘Driving into the Wreck’: A Feminist Inquiry of the Dissertation in Composition”
- 3:00: (no choice on this one, this is my panel) “Labor Rhetorics and Academic Organizing: Possibilities and Predicaments”
- 5:00: CCCC Labor Caucus Interest Group
On the 21st Century literacies the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) released several statements recently, most notably the “Definition of 21st Century Literacies,” which was adopted by the NCTE Executive Commitee on February 18, 2008.
The “Definition” statment follows NCTE’s 2005 “Position Statement on Multimodal Literacies,” which addressed issues of definition and challenges of new/digital/multimodal literacies. Even more recently, NCTE released a set of guidelines, “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education,” which attemps to deal with new issues concerning fair use and copy right. And in 2007, NCTE released “21st Century Literacies: A Policy Research Brief.”
The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCCs), which meets next week in San Francisco, also released “Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments,” in 2004.
The article “Backers of ’21st Century Skills’ Take Flak,” in this week’s Education Week, reports on some of the critics of the call for “21st Century Skills”–that is, “information, media, and technology skills.” The article begins:
The phrase “21st-century skills” is everywhere in education policy discussions these days, from faculty lounges to the highest echelons of the U.S. education system.
Broadly speaking, it refers to a push for schools to teach critical-thinking, analytical, and technology skills, in addition to the “soft skills” of creativity, collaboration, and communication that some experts argue will be in high demand as the world increasingly shifts to a global, entrepreneurial, and service-based workplace.
But now a group of researchers, historians, and policymakers from across the political spectrum are raising a red flag about the agenda as embodied by the Tucson, Ariz.-based Partnership for 21st Century Skills, or P21, the leading advocacy group for 21st-century skills.
Unless states that sign on to the movement ensure that all students are also taught a body of explicit, well-sequenced content, a focus on skills will not help students develop higher-order critical-thinking abilities, they said at a panel discussion here in the nation’s capital last week.
Check out the full article here.
Toward A Definition of 21st-Century Literacies
Adopted by the NCTE Executive Committee
February 15, 2008
Literacy has always been a collection of cultural and communicative practices shared among members of particular groups. As society and technology change, so does literacy. Because technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the twenty-first century demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many literacies. These literacies—from reading online newspapers to participating in virtual classrooms—are multiple, dynamic, and malleable. As in the past, they are inextricably linked with particular histories, life possibilities and social trajectories of individuals and groups. Twenty-first century readers and writers need to
• Develop proficiency with the tools of technology
• Build relationships with others to pose and solve problems collaboratively and
cross-culturally
• Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of
purposes
• Manage, analyze and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous
information
• Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multi-media texts
• Attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments
Recent Comments