More research...

Bashford, Joanne. "Placement Decisions for First-Time-in-College Students Using the Computerized Placement Test." Office of Instructional Research, Miami-Dade Community College (1998).

This research report on the scores incoming freshmen received in computerized placement tests. These test scores are compared with the percentage of students who then passed the courses in which they placed themselves. Bashford found that when they adjusted the score ranges to more effectively match the skill levels for the courses, more students passed the courses they were enrolled in. Though just a list of tables, this information is important to consider when deciding what type of placement method is to be used for fycomp. Like other research on this issue, it seems that this method of placement is still not as accurate or useful as portfolio assessment or GSP.

Armstrong, William B. "Pre-Enrollment Placement Testing and Curricular Content: Correspondence or Misalignment?" (2001) ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 454 895.

Armstrong looks at the relationship between placement tests scores and academic achievement. To measure academic achievement, this researcher administered placement tests before and after students took their first semesters of freshman comp. He found, by no surprise, that there was no significant change in test scores for students. It makes sense, because the tests only predict how well a student will do on that test, not necessarily the course itself. Armstrong suggests that in order for there to be a significant change in scores, curriculum needs to be more closely related to material on the placement tests. This is important to note, but do we really want to measure students' successes on placement tests? Wouldn't this be the same as giving secondary students the MEAP test and expecting that to determine how well they will do in fycomp courses? Sounds like the same thing to me.

Royer, Daniel J. and Roger Gilles. Directed self-placement: Principles and practices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press 2003.

This text seems to explain the standards for self-placement standards in writing programs. Since these authors can be considered the "fathers" of directed self-placement, they manage to perfectly outline the methods for using it in any writing program. So far, I've breifly scanned through the text. However, I do think that it will offer some valuable insight on why schools who use GSP tend to stay true to what Royer and Gilles recommend. EMU has wandered a little down the beaten path with its methods, which may be good or bad; we don't know for sure yet. I will have to further consult this text to form a more clear opinion about the issue.

Armstrong, William B. "Validating Placement Tests in the Community College: The Role of Test Scores, Biographic Data, and Grade Variation." Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research Boston, MA 28-31 May 1995.

This study looks at the validity of placement tests and how the scores of these tests relate to student grades. The main thing that Armstrong found was that these placement tests did not predict grades significantly because there are too many outside variables that determine final grades for English courses. Some of these variables were age, gender, previous knowledge, committment to learning the material, instructor variations, etc. This study makes me wonder about how the GSP questionaires would predict how well students do in the course. Judging by this study, it seems superfluous to look at this for my own study. I think it further convinces me that I need to modify some aspects of my study to include writing self-efficacy in comparison to placement strategies.

Luna, Andrea. "A Voice in the Decision: Self-Evaluation in the Freshman English Placement Process." Reading and Writing Quarterly 19 (2003): 377-392.

At Lyndon State College writing program administrators tried placing students into freshman courses by letting them choose the course right for them AND then writing an essay defending that choice. I think this is a great idea, but one that probably works best in a small school like LSC. I'm sure it may be more difficult for something of this nature to be implemented at EMU, but still something to think about as we move toward the GSP-type procedure for fycomp. What researchers noticed were that some students would sell themselves short when deciding which course to enroll in. They may have said in their essay that they lack organization skills, but the essay itself was clearly organized. In this case, advisors compensated and placed these students in course that they thought would be better. Luna feels that this "lack of confidence" stems from the fact that students have little experience as self-evaluators of their writing. I agree. This study further confirms my questions about how well students will place themselves in the GSP method. Will our students sell themselves short as well? Maybe this is something to look at in-depth for my study. Do students' writing self-efficacy predict the course they choose to enroll in?

Borrowman, Shane. "The Trinity of Portfolio Placement: Validity, Reliability, and Curriculum Reform." Writing Program Administration 22 (1999) 7-25.

Borrowman discusses the importance of portfolio assessment for fycomp placement and how it is conducted at the University of Arizona. This program of study reitterates similar thoughts on portfolio placement that I have found in my research. What is interesting is that this program somehow has collaborated with high school teachers where both secondary and post-secondary writing instructors score the portfolios for placement into composition courses. I'm not sure if this is the best idea, unless secondary teachers are familiar with the program used at UA. I think the most important aspect of this placement procedure is that is relates to the way in which comp studies is taught at the university. This placement strategy is one of few that seem to correlate so well with what will be used in the classroom. Doing it this way is reason for making accurate placement decisions for students.