WHAT DO THESE NUMBERS MEAN?:
ASCERTAINING REASONS FOR
WITHDRAWAL AND FAILURE RATES IN
MY ENGLISH 102 CLASS
by Valerie Murrenus Pilmaier, PhD
Assistant Professor of English
University of Wisconsin-Sheboygan
THE MISSION STATEMENT OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN COLLEGES
The University of Wisconsin Colleges is a multicampus institution committed to high quality
educational programs, preparing students for
success at the baccalaureate level of education,
providing the first two years of a liberal arts
general education that is accessible and
affordable, providing a single baccalaureate
degree that meets local and individual needs, and
advancing the Wisconsin Idea by bringing the
resources of the University to the people of the
state and the communities that provide and
support its campuses.
http://www.uwc.edu/about/overview/mission
GOALS OF ENGLISH 102, A CORE COURSE







102 is “[a] rhetoric course that focuses on writing which
presents information, ideas, and arguments, with attention
to the essay and techniques of documentation. Emphasis
will be on academic writing which is applicable across the
curriculum” (UW Colleges Course Guide).
To analyze, synthesize, evaluate and interpret information
and ideas
To construct hypothesis and arguments
To integrate knowledge, research, and experience to
support hypothesis and argument
To continue to develop critical thinking and reading skills
To write and construct essays clearly, coherently, and in a
well-organized manner
To gather and use information from printed sources,
electronic sources, observation and interaction
WITHDRAWAL/FAILURE* RATES IN MY ENGLISH
102 COMPOSITION CLASSES, F 2009- S 2012





F2009, of 24 students in S1: 0 withdrawals and 2 failures
Of 24 students in S2: 5 withdrawals and 4 failures
S2010, of 24 students in S1: 3 withdrawals and 4 failures
Of 23 students in the S2: 3 withdrawals and 4 failures
Summer 2010, of 6 students: 1 withdrawal and 0 failures
F2010, of 22 students in Online: 1 withdrawal and 4 failures
S2011, of 16 students in Online: 6 withdrawals and 4 failures
F2011, of 22 students in S1: 1 withdrawal and 8 failures
Of 22 students in S2: 1 withdrawal and 10 failures
Spring 2012, of 22 students in S1: 1 withdrawal and 5 failures
of 22 students in S2: 1 withdrawal and 8 failures

Failure means a C- or less since you need a C to pass English 102
A SNAPSHOT OF UW-SHEBOYGAN
Student Profile for this Institution of Access
 Headcount Enrollment: 894
 New Freshmen 287
 first-generation 64%
 average ACT score 20.4
 Part-time students: 447 (50%)
 Students age 22+ 295 (33%)
 % of students receiving financial aid {2010-2011}:
54%
 Average $ per recipient: $5,556
http://www.uwc.edu/sites/default/files/imceuploads/about/overview/factbook/uwc_factbook_campuses.pdf
TRANSFER RATES
In a 2011 study done by Holly Hassel and Joanne
Giordano about transfer rates in the UW
Colleges, they determined the following about
Sheboygan’s students:
 33.3% transfer to other UW schools
 32% do not transfer: the highest non-transfer
rate in the Colleges (save Online, which is 40%)
 22.8% transfer to techs
 12.4% transfer to Outside (other WI colleges,
non-WI colleges, WI private)

INSPIRATION FOR MY WISCONSIN
TEACHING FELLOWS/SCHOLARS PROJECT
Vincent Tinto, in “Research and Practice of
Student Retention: What Next?” states simply,
“Though articulation agreements are helpful, they
do not help more low-income student transfer.
What we need, but do not have, is a body of
research that tells of the nature of institutional
practices that enable more low-income students to
transfer, and, in turn, succeed in four-year colleges
and universities,” since “[among] those beginning
in a two-year college, only 8% of low-income
students earn a Bachelor’s degree within six years
while nearly 25% of high-income students do
(NCES 2003, Table 2.1C).” (13, 12).

MY WTFS PROJECT, 2012-2014
From F2009-S2012, a large proportion of
students either withdrew or failed my English
102: Composition II class.
 As a core course, it is imperative that students
pass this class in order to graduate.
 From F2012- S2014, I am ascertaining via
student surveys and their written materials if
there are additional reasons that I had not
considered as to why students are withdrawing
and failing at these large rates.

KNOWN VARIABLES
INHIBITING SUCCESS
Incorrect placement into 102 via WEPT score or
Multiple Measures Placement
 Personal reasons (family, work, health)
 Unpreparedness
 A lack of confidence
 Incompatibility with the teacher
 Redirection of career path

WITHDRAWAL/FAILURE RATES IN MY
ENGLISH 102 CLASS, FALL 2013




English 102, Section 2
22 students total, 4 withdrawals by the official
withdrawal date and 1 late withdrawal and 4
students receiving a C- or lower.
Of the 5 withdrawals, two dropped due to conflicts
with work schedules, one stopped coming after the
second week of school, one dropped with a B average,
and one dropped for medical reasons. Only one
student spoke to me prior to withdrawing from class.
Of the four failures, one had a medical condition but
refused an accommodations form, one had other
difficult classes that demanded more time, and two
felt their skill-set levels were not adept enough for
102
WITHDRAWAL/FAILURE RATES IN MY
ENGLISH 102 CLASSES, FALL 2012
Of 18 enrolled students, 4 withdrew and 2 did not
pass.
 Of the 4 withdrawals, 2 were late entries into
class (entered two weeks into class) and stopped
coming after the first paper was due, 1 only came
to two classes and 1 had work scheduling
conflicts with class.
 Of the 2 students who did not pass, 1 had work
scheduling conflicts and 1 felt she was not ready
for 102 (as revealed in a conference with me).

CURRENT WITHDRAWALS, ENGLISH 102,
SPRING 2013






Out of 22 students in class after 10th day (the official
final add day), 8 students withdrew by the official
final withdrawal day of April 11.
1 student attended three weeks of class and never
turned in an assignment.
1 student missed ten classes and failed all papers.
2 students were doing above average work before the
2nd paper and did poorly on the 2nd paper. They did
not talk to me before dropping the class.
4 students attended all classes but failed both papers.
Each student had one conference with me (on the first
paper) but indicated during the conferences that they
did not feel ready for 102.
Of the 14 students left, 12 are passing and two have
not turned in the last two papers.
PREVIOUSLY UNRECOGNIZED VARIABLES





64% of Sheboygan’s students are First Generation College
students, and we have few support measures on campus for
that particular student population.
Of that group, 15% of our students come from Non-Native
Speaking households. This is another population that could
use more support (Christensen).
Although the English department has a list of Learning
Outcomes that each instructor must use as the guide for
the instruction in the class, there is no way to determine
how closely, or even if, instructors are teaching the
foundational material in 101 that students need to be
successful in 102.
I did not do a concept inventory at the beginning of the
semester to ascertain just how many Learning Outcomes
from 101 each student had mastered.
Although retention could certainly be improved, the
numbers are consistent with other institutions of access.
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the literature review, students thrive
when they have personal contact with faculty, so
I will continue to have mandatory conferences
with my students during the first six weeks of
school and suggest non-mandatory conferences
after that (Tinto 1987, 2004; Halpin; Pascarella
and Chapman; Ryan; Reichert, Cox).
 My original hypotheses about reasons for W/F
have been confirmed by my study and by the
literature review.
 I would like to change the direction of my study
to look at success rates of and interventions for
first generation college students.

THANKS TO
Holly Hassel and Joanne Giordano
 The Office of Professional and Instructional
Development
 The University of Wisconsin Colleges English
Department
 University of Wisconsin Colleges Provost’s Office
 University of Wisconsin-Sheboygan
 The Wisconsin Teaching Fellows/Scholars
Program

WORKS CITED





Christensen, Connie. “Assistant Dean of Student Service’s
Report to UW-Sheboygan Collegium.” Feb. 2013.
Hassel, Holly and Joanne Giordano. “Presentation on
Multiple Measures Placement for UW-Sheboygan.” 21 Nov.
2011.
Tinto, Vincent. “Research and Practice of Student
Retention: What Next?” Journal of College Student
Retention. 8.1(2006-2007): 1-19. Ebscohost. 23 Feb. 2013.
University of Wisconsin Colleges. “Campus Profile:
Sheboygan.” Factbook 2012. 2013. Web. 22 Jan. 2013.
http://www.uwc.edu/sites/default/files/imceuploads/about/overview/factbook/uwc_factbook_campuses.p
df
University of Wisconsin Colleges. “Mission Statement.”
2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2013.
http://www.uwc.edu/about/overview/mission
WORKS CONSULTED
Alexander, Karl, Robert Bozick and Doris Entwisle. “Warming Up, Cooling Out, or Holding Steady?: Persistence and Change in Educational Expectations
After High School.” Sociology of Education. 81.(2008): 371-396. ERIC. 2 April 2013.
Act 2010. “What Works in Student Retention: Fourth National Survey.” Report for All Colleges and Universities. 1-20. ERIC. 22 Mar. 2013.
Bahr, Peter Riley. “Cooling Out in the Community College: What is the Effect of Academic Advising on Students’ Chances of Success?” Research in Higher
Education 49(2008): 704-732. ERIC. 20 Jan. 2013.
Brunk-Chavez, Beth and Elaine Fredericksen. “Predicting Success: Increasing Retention and Pass Rates in College Composition.” Writing Program
Administration. 32.1-2(2008): 76-96. ERIC. 30 Mar. 2013.
Cox, Rebecca D. “It Was Just That I Was Afraid: Promoting Success by Addressing Students; Fear of Failure.” Community College Review. 37.1(2009): 5280. Ebscohost. 2 April 2013.
Hagedorn, Lisa Serra. “How to Define Retention: A New Look at an Old Problem.” Transfer and Retention of the Urban Community College Students
Project funded through he Lumina Foundation.
Hassel, Holly and Joanne Giordano. “Assessment of the Multiple Measures Approach to Composition and Learning Support Placement: Placement,
Preparation, and Pedagogy Grant Project: Assessing the Alignment of Placement and Curriculum for the UW-Colleges. Report 1. UW Colleges. 1 Nov.
2011. Print.
Kaliszeski, Michael S. “Clark’s “Cooling Out” Concept as a Factor in Student Completion of Community College Programs. Florida State Graduate
Seminar Paper. ERIC. 1988.
Longwell-Grice, Rob and Hope Longwell-Grice. “Testing Tinto: How Do Retention Theories Work For First-Generation, Working-Class Students?” Journal
of College Student Retention. 9.4(2007-2008): 407-419. ERIC. 2 Apr 2013.
Penrose, Ann M. “Academic Literacy Perceptions and Performance: Comparing First-Generation and Continuing-Generation College Students.” Research
in the Teaching of English: 36(2002): 437-461. Ebscohost. 27 Jan. 2013.
Ryan, Mary Gene. “Improving Retention and Academic Achievement for First-Time Students at a Two-Year College.” Exchange. Ebscohost.
Powell, Pegeen Reichert. “Retention and Writing Instruction: Implications for Access and Pedagogy.” CCC. 60.4(2009): 664-682. ERIC. 15 Jan. 2013.
Tinto, Vincent. “The Principles of Effective Retention.” Viewpoints: Paper Presented at the Fall Conference of the Maryland College Personnel Association.
20 Nov. 1987. ERIC. 20 Feb. 2013. 1-18.
--. “Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next?” Journal of College Student Retention. 8.1(2006-2007): 1-19. ERIC. 22 Feb. 2013.
--. “Student Retention and Graduation: Facing the Truth, Living with the Consequences.” Occasional Paper. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity
in Higher Education. July 2004: 1-15.
Veenstra, Cindy P. “Thoughts and Experiences of Educators Related to Quality and Change.” Educator’s World:The Journal for Quality and Participation.
Jan. 2009: 19-23. Ebscohost. 22 Feb. 2013.