Adams, Peter, et al. "The Accelerated Learning Program:Throwing Open The Gates." Journal Of Basic Writing 28.2 (2009): 50-69. Education Research Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Adams, et al. begin by describing their vision of the historical ideologies that surround remedial writing courses (as gates to keep students out or as paths to success) (50). Adams, et al. pose the question: “What would happen... if’... we could mainstream them [remedial students] directly into first-year composition, while also providing appropriate support to help them succeed?” (53). The article makes a strong case for why writing programs should consider the ALP (Accelerated Learning Program) model.

Adams, et al. reflect basic writing’s current desire to “mainstream” remedial writers, meaning place them directly in college-level courses rather than remedial, non-credit coursework. Fox also demonstrates this with his work at Cal State Chico.

I agree with Adams’ criticism of remedial courses as often gates that keep students out of college composition courses, but I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing as the authors seem to indicate. I continue to struggle with the idea that I think not all students are really ready for college-level work. It goes against what many of us think as educators (that everyone should go to college and everyone has the opportunity to succeed), but I also feel challenged when I have students who seem to need more help than my time constraints or training allow. I am concerned that some students are set up for failure when they’re placed in a class that may be beyond their current abilities. Adams, et al. present their ALP model as a solution, but I am left wanting more information about how these programs can be successful as their article clearly addresses the why.  

This article may be helpful for readers looking for a narrative description of the observations and processes that brought CCBC faculty to the ALP model as well as the administrative and financial challenges of implementing an ALP.

CCBC’s model does present a truer sense of mainstreaming than my institution in that remedial students are combined with students who may not need additional instruction. The remedial students participate in a smaller supplemental section immediately following the course. (My institution creates separate courses entirely and supplemental courses are the same large size). One reason behind keeping students with non developmental students is that the students “serve as role models for the basic writers” (57). Adams, et al. give some credit to cohorts and learning communities for their model (60). One point Adams, et al. make is that “both learning communities and studio courses credit some of their success to the fact that students are learning about writing in a meaningful context” (61).

I had hoped to gain a stronger sense of what faculty actually do in these supplemental sections. Adams, et al. give a very brief description of what might go on but don’t offer much in the way of details regarding best practices. It seems similar to Cal State Chico’s model, but perhaps less student-directed. I will continue to research how mainstreaming can work effectively within the supplemental classroom.