Article Review 1

Cleary, Michelle N. “How Antonio Graduated On Out of Here: Improving the Success of Adult

            Students with an Individualized Writing Course.” Journal of Basic Writing 30.1 (2011):

            (34-64). Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 September 2016.

            Cleary’s central argument in “How Antonio Graduated On Out of Here: Improving the Success of Adult Students with an Individualized Writing Course” is that a Writing Workshop approach, as it has been implemented at DePaul University, improves the overall collegiate success of both adult learners and students identified as non-traditional or at-risk for reasons other than age.

            Cleary cements the need to better serve this population, citing sources such as the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). According to the NCES almost two-thirds of undergraduates identify as non-traditional, and the majority of these will drop out within three years of first undertaking the pursuit of a bachelor’s degree (35). Cleary hones her argument by providing evidence that non-traditional students often cite failure or success on college writing assignments as directly related to their respective decisions to persist in or give up on attaining a bachelor’s degree (36).

            Cleary goes on to distinguish the Writing Workshop for which she advocates from other approaches, such as remedial English courses. Cleary’s Writing Workshop is open not only to first-year students identified by assessment as having low verbal skills, but also to any student struggling with collegiate writing.

            The Writing Workshop Cleary describes is unique to anything that I have experienced, both as a student at a large, public university and a teacher at a small, private college. Among the salient features: a maximum class size of ten and instruction directly informed by individual student needs. There are four criteria guiding instruction in all sections of The Writing Workshop, namely that each student: “1. Can assess his or her own writing and address areas of weakness…. 2. Uses revision to produce significantly improved final drafts…. 3. Demonstrates improvement in writing as documented in a writing portfolio…. 4. Presents a plan for continuous, ongoing improvement of writing…” (44-46).

            Cleary addresses the financial and staffing challenges inherent in so unique a course, but she offers powerful evidence of the course’s positive results. Significant in the “big picture” of higher education are the cost savings Cleary reports; DePaul incurs a lower cost supporting students via The Writing Workshop than if these students had dropped out (48). Additionally, Cleary highlights participating students’ success: “Although Writing Workshop students are some of the weaker writers in a writing-intensive program, they are retained to the next quarter and to the following year at higher rates that the SNL [The School for New Learning] and national averages” (47).

            I would recommend this article both to peers and scholars in the field. The article is readable, and its central argument is well-supported with evidence from credible sources. Cleary describes The Writing Workshop with such detail that I can envision how such a program might work at my institution, McPherson College (MC). Though MC has successfully recruited many first-generation and non-traditional students, the college has experienced limited success supporting these students via writing center and non-credit workshop approaches. Cleary’s article not only piques my interests but gives me hope that better options exist.