Exploratory Analysis of a Blended-learning Course Redesign for Developmental Writers

References

• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21–41. doi:10.1111/ajsp.1999.2.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S. N. (2007). Teaching developmental writing: Background readings. Gordonsville,VA: Bedford/St.Martin’s/Macmillan
   Google Scholar
• Boylan, H. R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in developmental education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement Network with the National Center for Developmental Education.
   Google Scholar
• Branch, R. M., & Merrill, D. M. (2012). Characteristics of instructional design models. In R. A. Reiser, & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed., pp. 8–15). Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
   Google Scholar
• Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center database (ED 282491): http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED282491.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & Brawer, B. (2003). The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Crews, D., & Aragon, S. (2004). Influence of a community college developmental education writing course on academic performance. Community College Review, 32(2), 1–18. doi:10.1177/009155210403200201
   Google Scholar
• Education Code. (2013). Texas education code chapter 51, section 30162, subsections (h,i), Provisions generally applicable to higher education. Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.51.htm#51.3062
   Google Scholar
• Educational Testing Service. (2012). Criterion for higher education. Retrieved from Educational Testing Service Web site: http://www.ets.org/criterion/higher_ed/about
   Google Scholar
• Elder, J. (2006, March). Brain friendly strategies for getting and keeping students’ attention in developmental classes. Lecture presented at North Texas Community College Consortium Regional Forum on Developmental Education, Plano, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Fast Facts. (2013). Dallas County community college district website. Retrieved from http://www.dcccd.edu/AU/WhoWeAre/DCCCDFacts/Pages/default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gerlaugh, K., Thompson, L., Boylan, H., & Davis, H. (2007). National study of developmental education II: Baseline data for community colleges. Research in Developmental Education, 20(4), 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/publications/ride/documents/RiDE%2020-4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansman, C., & Wilson, A. (1998). Teaching writing in community colleges: A situated view of how adults learn to write in computer based writing classrooms. Community College Review, 26(1), 21–42. doi:10.1177/009155219802600102
   Google Scholar
• Haycock, K. (2008, March 17). The national context for course redesign: Why we need to improve access and success in higher education. Keynote speech presented at NCAT 2nd Annual Redesign Alliance Conference, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Hayward, C., & Willett, T. (2014). Curricular redesign and gatekeeper completion: A multi-college evaluation of the California acceleration project. Berkeley, CA: The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges.
   Google Scholar
• Hopper, P., Taylor, R., & Wolford, P. (1997). Success rates of developmental vs. nondevelopmental students in freshman college level English. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.
   Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences. (2014). What works clearinghouse: Handbooks and other resources, supplemental materials. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Protocols
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCabe, R. H., & Day, P. R., Jr. (1998). Developmental education: A twenty-first century social and economic imperative. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community College and the College Board.
   Google Scholar
• McClenney, K. (2008, March 18). Student engagement and student success: What we’re learning. Panel discussion presented at the meeting of the Redesign Alliance Second Annual Conference, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Academic Transformation. (2005). Welcome to the National Center for Academic Transformation. Retrieved from http://www.ncat.org/
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Writing in Schools and America’s Colleges. (2003). The neglected “r”: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglectedr.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M. (2006). The social and historical context for writing research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Orey, M. (Ed.) (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology [E-Book on Educational Psychology]. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu//.php?title=Main_Page
   Google Scholar
• Perin, D., & Charron, K. (2006). Lights just click on every day. In T. Bailey, & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 182–186). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.
   Google Scholar
• Perin, D., & Hare, R. (2010). A contextualized reading-writing intervention for community college students. Community College Research Center Brief, 44, 1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Resch, A., Berk, J., & Akers, L. (2014). Recognizing and conducting opportunistic experiments in education: A guide for policymakers and researchers (REL 2014-037). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education, Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Analytical Technical Assistance and Development. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
   Google Scholar
• Richland College. (2012). Profile. Retrieved from https://richlandcollege.edu/thunder-documents/profile/
   Google Scholar
• Richland College. (2014). Richland College 2014-15 graduate profile. Retrieved from https://richlandcollege.edu/assets/uploads/2016/02/Grad-Profile.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Roueche, J., & Roueche, S. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at risk student in the open door college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. (1999). High stakes, high performance: Making remedial education work. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. doi:10.1080/10494820600996972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic writing. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smilkstein, R. (2011). We’re born to learn: Using the brain’s natural learning process to create today’s curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
   Google Scholar
• Survey of Entering Student Engagement. (2007, Fall). Starting right: A first look at engaging entering students. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
   Google Scholar
• Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2016). Closing the gaps 2015 progress report: June 2016. Austin, TX: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/7980.PDF?CFID=50802435&CFTOKEN=83831896
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiburg, K. (1995). An historical perspective on instructional design: Is it time to exchange skinner’s teaching machine for Dewey’s toolbox? International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. 1995. Conference Proceedings Mahwah, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., & Green, C. (2007). Course redesign of developmental writing 0091 and 0093 ( Unpublished typescript). Richland College, Dallas, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. A., Davis, D., & Dondlinger, M. J. (2010, May). Developmental writing course redesign: A systems approach to student writing success. Poster session presented at the meeting of American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Wingard, R. R. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional study. Educause Quarterly, 1, 26–35. Retrieved from Educause Web site http://net.educause.edu////.pdf
   Google Scholar