Student Response to a Corequisite Pilot Program: A Retrospective
Date
2018-10
Authors
Threadgill, Elizabeth J.
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Texas State University, The Education Institute
Abstract
This retrospective article presents the results of a pilot study on student perceptions of a corequisite model for developmental writing. Qualitative survey data was collected at the beginning, middle, and end of Fall 2013 at a large public university in central Texas. A total of 21 students participated in this study. Eleven students who were near the cut-off for the placement exam were enrolled in a first-semester composition course with other students who placed directly into first-semester composition. These 11 students also agreed to meet outside of the composition classroom at a set time for the corequisite course. Another ten students who were near the cut-off for the placement exam were placed in a traditional 16-week developmental writing course that served as a control. Responses were analyzed using coding practices outlined by SaldaƱa (2009), including initial coding, categorizing, and theming. Themes that emerged in the responses of students enrolled in the traditional 16-week developmental writing course included the following: (a) this course is pointless/a waste, (b) mismatch between placement and self-perception, and (c) transferability. Themes that emerged in the responses of students enrolled in the corequisite model included the following: (a) a lot is riding on success in the corequisite composition course, (b) unsure/nervous about expectations, and (c) improved self-efficacy at the end of the course. The major implication of this study is the importance of including student voices in the implementation of models for developmental education.
Description
Keywords
education, developmental writing, corequisite courses, pilot program, developmental education
Citation
Threadgill, E. J. (2018). Student Response to a Corequisite Pilot Program: A Retrospective. Journal of College Academic Support, 1(2), pp. 18-23.