Academic Literacy: A Statement of Competencies Expected of Students Entering California's Public Colleges and Universities

Introduction

The Historical Moment

In 1975, a Newsweek cover story entitled "Why Johnny Can't Write" aroused national concern about high school students' declining writing skills. This concern coincided with a renewed scholarly interest in rhetoric and, simultaneously, intensive research into the composing process and the development of writing skills. Through new subject matter requirements for pre-service teachers and professional development workshops for classroom teachers, these advances in composition pedagogy have been translated into instructional practices. Many teachers in all disciplines have come to understand their obligations to teach students to read, write, and think critically. In addition, upper-division writing requirements are now in place at most UC and CSU campuses.

These welcome changes in the past 25 years, nonetheless, are offset by factors other than writing instruction that affect the development of writing skills. For example, California's ranking on per capita spending for education, vis-à-vis other states, is lower today than twenty-five years ago. California also extends public school education to a large population of students just learning the English language, a condition present but not as prevalent in 1982 when the Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates (ICAS) issued its first report, the Statement of Competencies in English Expected of Freshmen.

These social and economic factors are often cited as reasons for California's lower reading and writing scores on standardized tests. In response to these scores, the State Board of Education for K-12 education adopted the California Language Arts Content Standards. Consequently, California students undergo yearly assessments based on these standards, and to receive a high school diploma, they now must demonstrate competency in both reading and writing. A major goal of conversations between K-12 and postsecondary faculty is to align the Language Arts Content Standards and expectations with the admissions and/or assessment mechanisms used in higher education; such alignment, it is hoped, will enable assessment of competencies within minimal testing time and at a minimal loss of instructional time. These movements coincide with state and federal legislative and political interest in education and arise amidst widespread calls for performance measures and greater accountability.

Our Task Force acknowledges the complicated nature of California public education within this broader context and the shifting sands of public expectation. Nonetheless, this document must underscore fundamental changes in pedagogy, advances in technology, and new emphases on critical reading, writing, and thinking across the curriculum.

It is this increased emphasis on critical reading, writing, and thinking that challenged and broadened the work of this committee to speak on behalf of the many postsecondary faculty in diverse disciplines and even vocational programs. To do so, we invited faculty who are currently teaching on community college, CSU, and UC campuses to participate in a study and to comment on expectations for entering students enrolled in introductory or first-year courses.

As the history of rhetoric reveals, attention to how effectively we communicate with others requires us to explore why we communicate for different purposes in diverse circumstances. We, therefore, take seriously the social dimension of reading and writing instruction and seek to identify skills and attitudes that shape academic literacy within a civil society.

About the Faculty Responses and Comments in Our Study
Faculty who regularly teach introductory or first-year courses were sent e-mail invitations to participate in a Web-based interview study hosted by the University of California, Irvine. (A transcription of that survey appears in Appendix A-1.) The questions were designed to obtain faculty viewpoints on the following:

• what respondents expect of their students' reading, writing, and critical thinking (e.g., what they assign; what roles those tasks play in the design of the course; how assignments contribute to student learning and to their evaluation of their students);
  

• how prepared respondents find their students to be for those assignments (e.g., how their students' preparation matches their expectations, what sorts of prior experiences enable success, or, conversely, what might contribute to their students' lack of success); and
  

• how they expect their students to acquire these experiences, skills, or competencies (e.g., prior to entrance, as part of the course's instruction, or through outside resources or referrals).

Additionally, we asked questions intended to identify other factors they believed might contribute to their students' academic success:

• what attitudes or predispositions facilitate student learning (what this document will call "habits of mind"); and
  

• what kind of technology respondents now use or intend soon to use (e.g., how do they deliver or complement instruction, what do they expect their students to use).

In this report, we have summarized faculty responses to reflect patterns that emerged. Faculty responses and comments have informed our recommendations, but our intention from the start was more ambitious than just reporting faculty views. Instead, we have combined what we believe our colleagues are saying about first-year students' literacy with research and our collective professional experience. Appendix A-2 contains a profile of respondents who completed the entire study and notes their academic and institutional affiliations. We are grateful to all of those who took time to share their views and to make significant narrative comments.

Contents of This Report
This document is divided into three parts briefly described below and is followed by an appendix containing a synopsis of the survey and additional resources.

Part I: Academic Literacy: Reading, Writing and Thinking Critically
This segment introduces

• the attitudes and habits of mind of successful students and the critical thinking abilities they must develop;
  

• the interconnectivity of reading and writing experiences and the expected competencies in each area;
  

• the related language arts competencies in listening and speaking;
  

• the particular language needs of students whose home language is not English; and
  

• additional competencies in technology-both essential and desirable-that students should cultivate prior to entering college or university.
  Each section provides a discussion regarding faculty's expectations, their perceptions of student preparation, and a rationale for these competencies. Part II. Competencies
  This section presents a chart of the competencies noted in Part I of this document and makes reference to two other significant documents, the California Language Arts Content Standards, and the California Education Roundtable Content Standards. The competencies noted in those documents are contained in Appendix B for comparative purposes. Readers of this document will find it useful to keep in mind the different origins of these recommended competency statements:
  

• The 2002 summary of competencies explicated in Part I of this document has been generated by the authors of this intersegmental task force and is bolstered by the study we have just mentioned.
  

• The California Language Arts Content Standards were designed by appointees of the State Board of Education without officially recognized participation by postsecondary faculty. Adopted by the State Board of Education, these standards are mandated for all public K-12 schools. The table in Appendix B includes the most relevant standards, those for grades 11-12.
  

• The California Education Roundtable Content Standards were published just immediately prior to the Language Arts Content Standards. Designed by a task force of K-12 faculty, administrators, public participants, and Academic Senate- appointed postsecondary faculty, these standards and competencies are advocated by experts teaching in California's public institutions.

While the chart in Part II is offered as a convenience and point of comparison to Appendix B, we caution readers against seeing competency as mere lists or sets of discrete "skills." Rather, we urge you to consider the contributions each makes to a larger, more holistic "competency" or "ability."

Part III. Comments on Implementation
This section contains Task Force suggestions for implementing the recommendations contained in this report and suggestions for "teaching the processes of learning."

Who Should Use and Implement this Document
This document deserves the consideration of many audiences:

• students-who share the responsibility for classroom learning-and their parents who share the task of preparing students to enter college or university and who should insist upon educational excellence at all levels;
  

• high school faculty in all disciplines-who bear responsibility for classroom instruction and who, by their own behaviors, can exemplify critical reading, writing, and thinking;
  

• college and university faculty-who are encouraged to re-examine their expectations and practices in light of their colleagues' statements;
  

• administrators at both secondary and postsecondary levels-who are asked to examine assessment and testing practices and the levels of high-school preparation, and who understand the importance of ongoing professional development;
  

• elected and appointed officials who, as they consider broader policy issues, may wish to acquaint themselves with current pedagogy and new research that have bearing on students' educational experiences and upon the professional development essential to sustain sound classroom practices and excellent instructors. We intend our report to prompt professional development efforts based on the work of local exemplary teachers, current research, and focused classroom-based inquiry. Unlike documents that are offered as prescriptions for school reform, this document comes as an invitation, perhaps a provocation, for robust, sustained, honest conversation across the secondary school-college divide. We also anticipate that our findings will inspire discussion with colleagues inside our own postsecondary institutions and among our transfer partners.