by Brice Lanham

University Writing Programs and English Departments have had something of a turbulent history when it comes to the placement of incoming students into a “correct” or “appropriate” first-year writing course. In an effort to place students “accurately” admissions offices have relied upon placement exams, essays, and standardized tests, looked at transcripts and high school GPAs, and even tried to gain a better sense of the non-academic influences at play in a student’s life through cover letters and interviews to decide what class would best suit a student (Sullivan and Nielsen). In considering these metrics, much scholarship has been devoted to evaluating how successfully universities are able to place students into the “correct” first-year writing course.

What often drives this research is a desire to improve student’s educational experiences and to increase the effectiveness of a teacher’s pedagogical practices within a classroom, as found in Richard Matzen and Jeff Hoyt’s research on the “usefulness and accuracy of multiple-choice tests and timed-essay exams for the student placement” (specifically the ACT and SAT) in their article “Basic Writing Placement with Holistically Scored Essays: Research Evidence.” In addition to suggesting that “improved placement” improves a student’s ability to learn and a teacher’s ability to teach, the author’s claim that “accurate placement not only affected the effectiveness of curriculum and pedagogy but also solicited policy decisions” (Matzen and Hoyt, 8).

By turning to an artifact in the Northeastern University Writing Program Archive, we can see a prime example of this turbulent history and what drives such changes in policy.

Specifically, I examine a proposal written by Richard Bullock, Northeastern University’s Coordinator of the Writing Program in 1985. The proposal, subtitled “A Revised Structure for Introductory Writing Programs in the Department of English,” provides context by explaining that all incoming students are required to write an essay during orientation to determine the placement of students into an appropriate “introductory” or “remedial” writing course (ENG 1110 Freshman English I; or, ENG 1013 and ENG 1014 Fundamentals of English I and II, respectively).

The proposal then provides a series of issues surrounding placement, including: labor (such as staffing for assessment, and the ability to assess diligently given the volume of student essays, which were approximately 4200 during the previous orientation); time (all 4200 essays had to be read and assessed by 9 AM the morning following orientation); technology (all students were placed automatically into ENG 1110, and those who needed to be transferred to ENG 1013 or ENG 1014 were done so manually); and a desire to align with current scholarship pertaining to student placement practices.

To address the above-mentioned issues, the proposed changes to placement and the structure of the English Department in 1985 are as follows:

To eliminate the writing placement test all together

 

To change ENG 1110 Freshman Writing 1 to ENG 1109 Freshman Writing 1A, effectively reducing class sizes from 25 to 20 students and allowing instructors to provide an “S” grade (a “Satisfactory” grade on a pass/fail basis)

 

To renumber some sections of ENG 1014 Fundamentals of English 1 (a remedial course) to ENG 1110, Freshman Writing 1B, in order to provide continued support for students coming from ENG 1109, Freshman Writing 1A

 

To require a minimum grade of “C” in any prerequisite course (ENG 1109, ENG 1110, or ENG 1014) to be able to enroll in English 1111 (Freshman English II)

Additionally, the proposal later states that it will have the Admissions Office rate students on the basis of their SAT Verbal tests and provide placement by this metric, where any student with a “4” rating and SAT Verbal of 300 or below will be placed into ENG 1013, Fundamentals of English 1. Otherwise, students will be placed into ENG 1109, Freshman Writing 1A. Historically, this turn to rely upon the SAT test aligns with the implementation of the SAT II in 1977, which included a timed-essay section in addition to the multiple-choice sections of the SAT I (Matzen and Hoyt), and may contribute to the greater trend of schools to utilize the SAT timed-essay for placement, which became mandatory for all SAT tests in 2005 and then no longer mandatory once again in 2016 (Jaschik).

What I find interesting about Bullock’s “Proposal,” as an artifact, is that it allows us in the present to retroactively examine the success or failure of policies despite the best efforts of universities and departments to improve student’s educational experiences and to make decisions based on writing research and scholarship. Current scholarship in writing studies contradicts quite a bit of what this proposal claims will improve the English department: many if not most universities no longer offer “remedial” writing courses; prescribing visits to the writing center is now relatively frowned upon; and, within the last two years, many schools have dropped the requirement of the SAT timed-essay for their admissions process (Jaschik).

I also find this proposal of particular interest as it complicates the predominate narrative that changes in policy with regard to placement are largely done with the ultimate goal of improving students’ educational experiences. To be sure, the proposal does make the case that students will receive more direct feedback as they are monitored from class to class, and that students will receive more individual attention as class sizes shrink. However, one of the main concerns underlying the 1985 Proposal are the resources and labor needed to adequately conduct such large scale first-year writing assessment and placement processes. In other words, the main goal of the proposal isn’t to just implement changes that will improve the educational experiences of the students (as some scholarship might lead us to believe) but it also seeks to alleviate some of the strain upon the English Department faculty surrounding first-year writing placement.

To those in a Writing Program Faculty or Writing Program Administration position, this may seem like a no-brainer. Changes in policy take much more than just words on paper and a new initiative: it takes months of continuing conversations and adaptations by all members of the department; it takes time, money, and energy; and finally, it takes a lot of trial and error to learn both what is and isn’t possible, and from what’s possible, what works and what doesn’t. However, primary source artifacts such as these help to highlight the ins-and-outs of decision making at the departmental and university level. Additionally, they lend themselves to an understanding of the history of our departments, our institutions, and our field more generally.

Jaschik, Scott. “For Fate of SAT Writing Test, Watch California.” Inside Higher Ed. 2018.

Matzen, Richard and Jeff Hoyt. “Basic Writing Placement with Holistically Scored Essays: Research Evidence.” Journal of Developmental Education. Volume 28, Number 1. 2004.

Patrick Sullivan and David Nielsen. “Is a Writing Sample Necessary for ‘Accurate Placement’?” Journal of Developmental Education. Volume 33, Issue 2. 2009.

This is an analysis (2020) of a legacy record from the first two years of NUWPArc's development.

What are Legacy records?

The records associated with this exhibit come from NUWPArc's Legacy records collection. Records in this collection represent the early organization, selection, digitization, and classification procedures (tagging, metadata) that were applied to the first 100 documents our team ingested to the DRS.

The Legacy records collection showcases evolution of our project and processes from its first years (2018-2020). The system of tagging and metadata for records in this collection differ from the system used throughout the rest of the collection today. Learn more about how our processes have changed since these records were created.