Rhetorical Context of Remedial Courses and the Implemetation of Integrated Reading and Writing

Sugie Goen and Helen Gillotte-Tropp discuss the context of changing conceptions and perceptions of remedial classes at CSU Campuses in their article, "Integrating Reading and Writing: A Response to the basic Writing 'Crisis,' " as to discuss the cultural and educational factors that built towards SFSU's creation and implementation of a year-long integrated reading and writing course. The goals of the integrated reading and writing program were to: integrate instruction of reading and writing to show and strengthen their correlation, allow time to create a discourse community to aid learning, develop literacy strategies that are learned in meaningful and increasingly complex academic situations, increase academic membership within the college campus by removing the stigma and the course-planning strain on "remedial" students, introduce a sophisticated curriculum and support students within it, and work towards purposeful communication where students use rhetorical reading strategies to engage in meaningful reading and writing that constructs new understanding or knowledge, while remaining authentic to their lives.

In her article, "Critiquing the Need to Eliminate Remediation: Lessons from San Francisco State," Goen-Salter discusses the results of SFSU's implementation of this integrated reading and writing program. The IRW program students, "had higher retention rates, completed the remediation requirement sooner and in greater numbers, scored similarly to or higher on measures of reading comprehension and critical reasoning, received higher ratings on their writing portfolios, and exited the program better able to pass the next composition course in the requires sequence" (88). Furthermore, she uses the success of the SFSU program to critique other CSU institutionalization of basic skills courses, and point towards a possible solution in preparing teachers to use an integrated reading and writing approach to basic skill instruction and remediation.

These two articles definitely expanded my previous view of remedial courses at the college level. I think I had similar goals of providing a space for students to increase their confidence and capability in integrated reading and writing strategies, but the articles provided more specific vocabulary (such as integrated) and practical research, results, and goals to incorporate into my thoughts on remedial courses. 

I have lingering questions on what types of readings would benefit students most in these courses; and, on the practical side, what daily strategies are used to meet the six goals Goen and Gillotte-Tropp outline for the year long course.