Computers and Composition

This case study examines factors that significantly affect student success in online first- and second-year composition at an open-access community college and, in doing so, contributes to scholarship on online composition and student success by empirically linking community and communication through high-context communication and students’ holistic contexts to indicators of academic outcomes and validating experiences. The study analyzes 175 participant responses to five low-stakes check-in assignments designed around the course-level concept of servingness. Eighty-one patterns identified in earlier research were grouped into 14 factors from which variables were derived. These, combined with check-in responses, course grades, course, sex, ethnicity, and race, yielded a total of 27 variables for quantitative analysis. Using chi-square tests (alpha = .10) and multiple correspondence analysis, 15 of 27 variables showed significant associations with course grades. Positive associations with academic growth, peer interaction, instructor engagement, inclusion, course design, and college resources aligned with higher check-in completion and higher grades; negative associations aligned with lower check-in completion and lower grades. Background characteristics, specifically course (English 1010/2010), ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic), and race (White/Non-White), also showed significant associations with course grades. Results suggest that academic outcomes and validating experiences must be evaluated together to inform strategies that support both academic achievement and students’ racial and cultural ways of knowing. Future research should examine how targeted, low-stakes assignments and high-context communication practices operate across institutions and student groups, including longitudinal analyses that track how community, communication, and access to college resources interact with student success over time.

This article describes five first-year writing instructors’ experiences with personalizing shared curriculum across three different course delivery formats (face-to-face, hybrid, online). The data is drawn from teaching journals that the co-authors, a non-tenure track, part-time Lecturer and a tenured Writing Program Administrator, and three Graduate Student Teaching Associates completed throughout Fall 2022. The findings illustrate both benefits and drawbacks related to shared curriculum: discussing and troubleshooting curriculum in a community of practice is highly valuable, but separating course delivery from course design is challenging. In our study, those challenges manifested as disconnects between course content and disciplinary identity, as well as personal feelings of failure. On the other hand, the need to personalize shared curriculum across multiple delivery formats proved productive, especially when instructors used asynchronous online materials as a starting point to develop hybrid and face-to-face lesson plans. Ultimately, we advocate for more conversations about how writing programs can support contingent faculty as they personalize shared curriculum through both course delivery and design, and we offer an example of a successful community of practice that revises shared curriculum in response to community members’ experiences with teaching in multiple modalities.