Composition Forum 43, Spring 2020
http://compositionforum.com/issue/43/

Navigating New Pathways, Partnerships, and Policies: The Dual Credit First-Year Composition Program at Texas Woman’s University

Katie McWain and Amanda Oswalt

Abstract: This profile offers insights from an established dual credit first-year composition program at a public state university in Texas, focusing in particular on the preparation and professional development of high school instructors who deliver college writing curriculum through an embedded partnership. The authors provide an overview of dual credit’s expansion and exigency nationwide, describe the history of the program at their institution, offer a discussion of relevant literature and research opportunities in composition studies, examine the program’s affordances and constraints, and conclude with strategies for writing pedagogy administrators and others with stakes in first-year composition/dual credit partnerships.

Introduction

Dual credit{1} writing partnerships between high schools and colleges are an important yet confounding phenomenon for composition studies. The field largely ignored these programs for many years, only recently beginning to weigh in with critiques and cautions (Schwalm; Malek and Micciche) as well as considerations of dual credit’s possibilities (Denecker; Wilkinson; Anson; Stancliff et al.). Confusion additionally circulates around the different delivery models, terminology, and local, state, and federal policies for students earning college credit in high schools. As a result, when the two of us began writing this profile of the dual credit first-year composition (FYC) program at Texas Woman’s University, we kept returning to a central question: What do compositionists need to know about dual credit—and why should they care?

First, this alternative pathway for college writing is here to stay, regardless of how the field might approach it. Nearly all fifty states now offer options for students to earn college credit in high school, and nationwide enrollment in dual credit courses has exploded since 2000, bolstered by the widespread support of policymakers and state and federal funding (Calhoon-Dillahunt 279-80). Legislators and parents alike view dual credit as a way for students to get ahead in their college careers, leaving Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) and on-campus FYC programs scrambling to navigate the impact of this new paradigm on our placement, curriculum, assessment, and professional development practices. As Caroline Wilkinson found in a recent study, many WPAs “are in the difficult position of figuring out how to run a dual credit program that aligns with their curriculum in an effective and ethical manner, specifically in regards to pedagogy” (93). We’ve learned, however, that the level of control a WPA exerts over an FYC dual credit partnership and pedagogy can vary widely, as can program models and missions.

We also know from emerging research that dual credit partnerships have both affordances and constraints—for teachers as well as students. The concept of college readiness is slippery, and students who test as cognitively ready for college-level coursework may not be affectively ready, lacking the dispositions necessary to succeed in postsecondary writing contexts (Ferguson et al.; Hansen et al; Tinberg and Nadeau). We also know that students from different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds are disparately impacted by the rise of alternative credit pathways, though few studies have accounted for these inequities (Moreland; Moreland and Miller). In the realm of pedagogy, we know that dual credit teachers must be able to “translate” college curriculum effectively for their own contexts (Kremers and Nolen), a challenging undertaking for which they receive inadequate support (McWain). We also know that high school and college instructors work in different environments under different labor conditions (McWain), and that the dual credit classroom is a space in which “the tensions and inconsistencies between secondary and post-secondary writing instruction have the potential for becoming more clearly defined” (Denecker 29). At the same time, research indicates that students at all levels can benefit from the “spillover effect” that occurs when dual credit teachers enrich their pedagogy through partnerships with postsecondary institutions (Dutkowsky, Evensky, and Edmonds).

However, there is much we still don’t know. The same question resurfaces at every dual credit conference, conversation, and meeting we attend: Does this arrangement actually work? Does it deliver on its promise to help students “get ahead”—especially in composition, given what we now know about the long-term development of writing across a student’s lifespan (Bazerman et al.)? As Kalpana Srinivas points out, “most research on dual credit is not published in refereed journals” (285), and large-scale data is often difficult to obtain (Stancliff et al.). Even after studying dual credit across disciplines and compiling a literature review for a national task force, we lack clear answers about best practices for this new delivery model—yet it exerts an unavoidable influence on our FYC program, receiving widespread support from university administrators, state legislators, and parents. Given what we now know about dual credit’s inevitability, rather than asking whether these programs are effective or why we should care about them, this profile poses a more generative question: How should WPAs and other faculty mentors approach their work with dual credit FYC programs? In the sections that follow, we share what we’ve learned as the director and graduate program assistant of an evolving dual credit FYC program—including successes, failures, and new questions.

The Dual Credit FYC Program at Texas Woman’s University

Texas Woman’s University (TWU) is a midsized, co-educational and Hispanic-Serving Institution located about 40 miles north of Dallas. Our first-year composition (FYC) program is housed in TWU’s English department and collaboratively administered by a tenure-track director, a non-tenure-track assistant director, a graduate assistant, and an administrative assistant, all of whom report to the English department chair. Over the past decade, FYC at TWU has undergone many changes in response to state legislation, including the adoption of common core outcomes, the elimination of basic writing, and the development of a comprehensive supplemental instruction program. Throughout these changes, FYC’s institutional status has remained robust, generating around 60 sections per semester and serving an estimated 2,600 students per year. Our two-course sequence is comprised of Composition I and II, both required in the Texas common core, and is taught by a rotating staff of MA and PhD graduate teaching assistants, part-time adjuncts, full-time lecturers, the occasional tenure-track faculty member, and an often overlooked population in composition research: high school dual credit teachers.

The rise of dual credit in Texas has been meteoric, mirroring national trends in secondary-postsecondary pathways (Malek and Micciche). In 2007, the state implemented legislation requiring all high schools to offer at least twelve hours of college credit to students, prompting a “massive increase” in program offerings (Moreland and Miller 186). An additional catalyst and major stakeholder in program expansion has been the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the body responsible for creating “statewide goals for dual credit programs that bolstered academic supports, defined the respective roles of the school districts and institutions of higher education, and provided sources of funding for the coursework” (“Dual Credit”). These efforts have contributed to the astonishing 753% increase in dual credit offerings from 2000 to 2017 across the state (THECB 1).

TWU jumped on the bandwagon in 2009, offering its first dual credit classes at four local high schools. This partnership was the vision of an upper-level administrator—herself a former high school teacher and secondary education advocate—who collaborated with the university admissions department to develop an “embedded” program. Within this model, high school teachers are credentialed to deliver college courses on their home campuses, ostensibly under the supervision of the sponsoring institution. According to its proponents, the embedded approach to dual credit—also termed “concurrent enrollment” by some accrediting bodies (NACEP)—is intended to foster mutually beneficial high school-college partnerships. Not all dual credit programs in Texas utilize this model, however; in our part of the state, many colleges send their contingent faculty members to teach courses in the high schools, while the state’s flagship university has utilized high school instructors as de facto teaching assistants for college instructors of record (“Professional Learning”). We have thus learned that dual credit practices and policies vary widely by institution, region, and state, and that little research has considered the benefits and drawbacks of one model in comparison to another.

Nevertheless, as dual credit began to boom throughout Texas in various forms, TWU followed suit. Our institution now partners with 15 participating high schools to offer 26 different classes, with FYC making up the largest proportion. During the 2018-19 academic year, TWU’s FYC program employed nine high school instructors to teach 27 dual credit sections, serving approximately 767 students. To contextualize these numbers within our overall program, around 23% percent of all FYC sections and 30% percent of all FYC students are dual credit, with high school teachers comprising a third of our instructional staff. Although these partnerships remain in continual flux, susceptible to the evolving cost-benefit calculations of local high schools competing for the best deal in the “composition marketplace” (Hansen), dual credit instructors currently teach FYC courses for TWU at nine secondary institutions across five districts in North Central Texas. These include a classical academy modeled on the Latinate tradition, a new technology school organized around project-based learning, and the nearby public high school where many college faculty send their children—all institutions that differ significantly from ours.

Our dual credit teachers’ backgrounds are similarly diverse: The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) requires them to have 18 hours of graduate coursework in English in order to teach at the college level, but many instructors have earned their credentials in literature or secondary education, rather than composition. This creates a disciplinary disconnect that can lead to misconceptions about writing pedagogy—a common challenge in dual credit FYC partnerships (McWain). In an attempt to maintain curricular coherence, we ask that all dual credit teachers adopt the same textbook, assign the same student writing anthology, and follow the same curricular sequence required of our on-campus instructors. This push for standardization is often met with resistance, a challenge we discuss in more detail later. Yet many teachers in our partnership are dedicated practitioners who have meaningfully integrated themselves into our on-campus FYC program, including completing the graduate composition theory and pedagogy seminar alongside new GTAs and, in one case, serving as a writing center tutor for on-campus FYC students—experiences these instructors have described as highly beneficial for their understanding of composition in general and our program in particular.

Supporting high school teachers’ pedagogical development has thus become paramount to our understanding of a successful dual credit partnership. When Katie McWain came on board as the new director of FYC in summer 2018, she inherited an evolving program that was beginning to build a more comprehensive support structure for teachers. TWU had recently started requiring dual credit instructors across the university to attend an annual in-service day; around that same time, the English department instituted annual classroom observations for all dual credit teachers in our discipline, including FYC as well as literature. In this arrangement, a college faculty member visits each dual credit classroom and completes an evaluative form to share with the instructor during a follow-up conference. We quickly learned through these observations that our dual credit teachers face challenges with designing curricula that aligns with our pedagogical goals. For example, some dual credit teachers are tasked with instructing a class that contains both dual credit and advanced placement (AP) students, which require two vastly different pedagogies. Therefore, in summer 2018, the English department held our first-ever partnership workshop, using this time to discuss articulating syllabi with objectives and college grading and participation policies.

This emerging structure for overseeing dual credit teachers (bringing them to campus once a year, requiring them to submit syllabi for approval, and observing their teaching) is more involved than any other department at TWU, leading upper-level administrators to commend English faculty for modeling a successful program. We knew from Dr. McWain’s previous research, however, that surveillance and policies alone are insufficient mechanisms for providing high school teachers with the specialized development they need in order to deliver quality college writing pedagogy (Burdick and Greer). Furthermore, university interactions with dual credit teachers in our partnership have at times been inconsistent, authoritarian, and unidirectional, rather than dialogic and supportive. The new FYC leadership team realized that these instructors need access to disciplinary and theoretical knowledge, pedagogical resources, and mentorship in order to be effective practitioners of composition. Unfortunately, however, there are few successful models for how to approach this task in our field.

Composition Studies and Dual Credit: A Complicated History

Composition research has been slow to embrace or even acknowledge the rise of dual credit as an FYC delivery model. Although the earliest programs trace back to Syracuse University’s Project Advance in the 1970s (Edmonds), and dual credit was already gaining widespread traction by the turn of the century, our profession has paid little attention until recently. WPA: Writing Program Administration published some of the earliest discussion in the field, including a 1991 debate over the benefits and drawbacks of the dual credit phenomenon (Schwalm; Vivion), followed nearly a decade later by Nancy Blattner and Jane Frick’s “Seizing the Initiative: The Missouri Model for Dual-Credit Composition Courses.” Disciplinary contributions were relatively scarce until the publication of Farris and Hansen’s collection College Credit for Writing in High School: The “Taking Care of” Business in 2010. That same year ushered in a decade of rapid dual credit expansion aligned with state and federal legislation, including Obama’s 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act, which opened the floodgates for college coursework in high schools.

Professional organizations slowly began to take note, with position statements on dual credit composition issued by CCCC and TYCA in 2012, followed by CWPA’s statement on pre-college credit for writing in 2014. The field also saw the emergence of pioneering articles around this same time, including the cluster published by Taczak and Thelin in Teaching English in the Two-Year College; Tinberg and Nadeau’s pair of student-focused studies; Denecker’s article on high school instructors; McCrimmon’s description of the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships; Hansen et al.’s ambitious study of dual credit writers; Malek and Micciche’s critique of the “state apparatus” for college writing credit; and Stancliff et al.’s 2017 article on assessing dual credit programs. 2017 and 2018 were especially productive years for research in this vein, with the completion of several doctoral dissertations (Erford; McWain; Moreland; Scott-Stewart) and offshoot publications (McWain, Finding Freedom; Moreland and Miller; Moreland, Chasing Transparency) addressing dual credit composition.

Perhaps most notably, when CCCC updated its statement on preparing teachers of writing in 2015, the guidelines were expanded to include a section for dual credit instructors. Around the same time, Christine Denecker and Casie Moreland established the first CCC Special Interest Group on dual credit composition, followed a few years later by their proposal for an edited collection on the same topic. Teaching English in the Two-Year College also solicited contributions for a special issue on dual credit in 2019, while CCCC, NCTE, and TYCA assembled a national task force to revise their earlier dual credit position statements into an expanded, cross-organizational version that same year. These developments are encouraging, but even in 2019, Caroline Wilkinson notes that “many composition educators feel a real anxiety about high school instructors teaching dual-credit composition classes” (80). This anxiety may continue to discourage meaningful research, leaving programs like ours without a roadmap.

FYC Dual Credit at TWU: Challenges and Opportunities for Growth

The constraints of dual credit partnerships have been well documented, but many of our specific challenges stem from state legislation as well as from the embedded partnership model utilized at TWU. For example, many local dual credit teachers are forced to combine AP English and FYC students in the same class, a practice adopted as a result of high school scheduling and logistical issues. This trend creates a range of problems for curricular and pedagogical alignment with our on-campus sections, including the focus on timed writing and exam preparation emphasized in AP curriculum. We’re currently in talks with TWU administration to move toward a “dual credit-only” model that cannot be combined with AP, and our regional accreditor has explored a mandate along these same lines. These changes tend to occur at a glacial place, however, and are rarely welcomed or implemented quickly by high school administrators and instructors. The embedded model has many benefits, but in its current form at TWU, it revolves around convenience for our high school partners—often at the expense of what we know to be best practices in college-level instruction. We also face challenges in aligning our semester calendars and communication processes with high schools in the area.

Similarly, Texas recently stipulated that dual credit students must have access to the same resources as on-campus students, including undergraduate advising and support services—leaving us unsure of what this rule might mean for our supplemental instruction program and other in-house FYC initiatives. Despite this gesture towards equivalency, not a single institution in the state has earned accreditation with the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships, an organization that maintains “standards of program quality” for dual credit programs across six categories: partnerships, curriculum, faculty, students, assessment, and program evaluation (NACEP, Standards). TWU has begun exploring the process of accrediting our program, but the requirements are complex and time-consuming. If we do decide to jump through the accreditation hoop, we also risk high schools deciding to end their relationship with us, choosing instead to partner with one of the many unaccredited two-year and four-year institutions in our large metropolitan area—all eager to offer dual credit cheaply and easily.

Yet our dual credit program also provides significant affordances for cross-level collaboration and strengthening local and regional networks of writing teachers. Research in other disciplines has demonstrated how embedded dual credit partnerships create an opportunity for high schools and colleges alike to benefit from the “spillover effect,” in which dual credit teachers who partner with postsecondary faculty pass along their enhanced expertise, materials, content coverage, and increased standards to all students they teach (Dutkowsky, Evensky, and Edmonds 256). Similarly, high school-college partnerships can “influence the ecology of writing instruction at the sponsoring university” (59) by preparing high school writers before they matriculate and involving more high school teachers in initiatives such as graduate coursework, the National Writing Project and similar professional institutes, and local conferences and consortia. Likewise, college instructors can learn a great deal from high school teachers in terms of creatively bypassing inadequate or a complete lack of technology and accessibility of limited resources. It’s important to note that this enrichment is “bilateral,” to use Wilkinson’s term (82): our high school teachers and college instructors can learn together and from one another.

Such connections often lead to exciting new initiatives; as one example, our assistant director worked closely with an FYC dual credit instructor this year to arrange our first-ever partnership field trip, bringing a class of high school students to campus for a day of exploring TWU resources and events. We’re also hoping to sponsor more cross-observations, in which high school instructors visit college faculty members’ classes and both parties reflect on the experience. Similarly, TWU’s English department is currently exploring a new hybrid MA program for dual credit teachers that will not only fill seats in our graduate courses, but also contribute to the quality of instruction in our regional FYC network. We have found, like Wilkinson, that dual credit programs can “move students and instructors towards a K-16 framework that creates more partnerships” (81) with manifold benefits. While the challenges of dual credit FYC can seem insurmountable, we’re learning to appreciate the advantages our partnerships provide and working toward making small, sustained changes over time.

Strategies for WPAs and College Faculty in FYC Dual Credit Programs

As we reflect on what we’ve learned from administering dual credit partnerships, it’s important to note that we still have much work to do—and we call on our colleagues in composition studies to value this work in their own programs. We certainly recognize that enacting ethical and effective dual credit leadership presents a real challenge for already-overworked WPAs, especially in light of the widespread misconceptions and misgivings that can persist on both sides of a high school-college partnership. For example, we agree with Wilkinson that college faculty in dual credit programs must “acknowledge that high school teachers are experts in their own right, often coming in with many years of classroom experience, and everyone in the [program] would benefit from their knowledge of writing and pedagogy” (91). Yet in the fairly traditional English department where we work, a disconnect from secondary education causes some of our colleagues to view high school instructors as subordinates needing to be managed. As a result, we’ve struggled to cultivate the “bilateral relationship” (82) with our dual credit teaching partners that Wilkinson recommends, while at the same time needing to ensure department leadership that we are doing our best to uphold the integrity of TWU’s FYC “brand” in the high schools.

To begin improving relationships with dual credit instructors, the new FYC leadership team has taken a few key steps. First, we developed an IRB-approved Google questionnaire to survey our teaching partners about their backgrounds, school context, perceptions of the partnership, and specific supports and resources that would benefit them most. Next, we invited teachers to attend focus groups and curriculum revision workshops with our on-campus instructors, in hopes that they will feel more like valued stakeholders in our evolving vision of the FYC program. Finally, we requested and received university funding to expand our department’s dual credit workshop from a few hours into an all-day event, complete with stipends for faculty leaders and teacher attendees. We’re now in the process of exploring additional programs, including expanded dual credit field trips, and inviting more high school instructors to collaborate with us on research projects related to dual credit partnerships and writing pedagogy.

Although each FYC program is unique, and we realize our experiences are particular to Texas, TWU, and the embedded model in particular, we do have some suggestions for WPAs and other administrators in dual credit partnerships. First and most importantly, we recommend taking an inventory of the high school teachers in your program and gathering as much information about their contexts as you can. Without this starting point, you lack a baseline understanding of who is delivering your FYC curriculum, under what conditions, and why. We’ve found college administrators often make assumptions about dual credit models and practices without experiential knowledge of what’s actually happening “on the ground” in their partnerships. At the same time, the perspectives of upper-level administrators are valuable for understanding the institutional, regional, and state dual credit landscape and how an FYC program fits into that picture. We’ve benefited greatly from some information-gathering meetings with the higher administrators who make decisions about the format, structure, and policies of dual credit at TWU, including learning more about how the embedded model works and why we use it.

Similarly, for WPAs and faculty supervisors at public state institutions—and even at private accredited institutions—it’s imperative to become familiar with the evolving state, regional, and federal policies and support mechanisms for alternative credit pathways. Drawing on local networks and expertise of dual credit professionals outside of your discipline is also a wise move. To take one example, McWain gleaned a tremendous amount of information from attending a regional dual credit conference that brought together high school administrators, counselors, and teachers alongside two- and four-year college faculty across different subjects and models, and she will soon be attending the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships conference to learn more about best practices across the country—all funded by an administration that is eager to ensure “compliance” and quality in its dual credit program.

We additionally urge WPAs to build effective communicative strategies for explaining why we teach on-campus FYC the way we do. We already communicate this in varying ways to instructors at in-service meetings and with district-level content coordinators. Perhaps these instances can serve as guides for this sorely needed communication. Many of us are accustomed to advocating for writing across the curriculum, or for the resources and practices we value in our own composition courses, but high school offerings are uncharted territory in this discourse. You may find yourself in the position, as we were recently, of having to translate FYC pedagogy to a provost who doesn’t necessarily see why our curriculum clashes with an exam-based AP curriculum, or to advocate for your writing program in other, novel rhetorical contexts. Along the same lines, when secondary institutions “orient” dual credit teachers, this programming tends to focus on logistics and administration, rather than what the teachers say they really need: disciplinary and curricular knowledge. We’ve had success in our partnership, for example, with sharing the Framework for Postsecondary Writing and WPA Outcomes Statements, as well as inviting dual credit teachers to think critically about the discipline of English studies and how composition and literature fit into that discipline. We also distribute rubrics, assignment prompts, and workshop materials to our dual credit teachers, and we invite them to participate in our development of pedagogical resources as much as they are able—a gesture they tell us they appreciate.

While McWain has worked to implement all of these strategies in an administrative capacity, Amanda Oswalt is in a unique position to apply some of her new dual credit expertise in a brand-new role: as a first-time instructor of dual credit for a community college that uses a traveling-faculty model, rather than an embedded model. Her first experience in teaching dual credit in the high schools began in the fall of 2019. In preparation for the new school year, the sponsoring community college held a district-wide meeting for all dual credit instructors, both new and experienced, and covered policies and procedural items. This mixed meeting of about 75 instructors didn’t allow for any time devoted to subject-specific discussions. Additionally, while the last hour of the meeting contained smaller breakout sessions, these sessions were general, covering concerns such as student success, faculty success, and FERPA. Oswalt now realizes how fortunate she is to have knowledge of TWU’s FYC dual credit program and the workshops, professional development, and meetings they offer. She feels prepared to teach this format for the first time; however, she wonders how the other new dual credit instructors at this community college will fare in their first semester.

Ultimately, while we’ve benefitted from studying our own program and researching high school-college partnerships in other disciplines, we urge more composition scholars and administrators to take up the mantle of dual credit research and involvement in FYC contexts—an undertaking that has gradually gained traction in recent years. Investigation and exploration of dual credit mentorship, observation processes, in-service models, and the benefits of the embedded model versus the traveling-instructor model are all areas lacking scholarship and study. We believe a more robust discourse with actual dual credit instructors across disciplines, where we learn their needs and wants when teaching dual credit, is necessary to understand what administrators can do to support their efforts in the classroom. We see dual credit composition as an exciting new frontier, one with similarities to other areas of the field that might have seemed daunting and unfamiliar at first, such as multimodal writing pedagogy, writing across the curriculum, or community engagement, and are now established areas of expertise in which we do some of our most innovative, boundary-crossing work. We know that dual credit and similar pathways are here to stay, especially as the national college completion agenda continues to expand. To remain effective stewards of our composition programs in all their iterations, we urge WPAs and other administrators to participate in conversations about dual credit’s future and to advocate for our high school partners, ensuring we all have a seat at the composition table.

Postscript

Author Katie McWain passed away before this profile was published. Her dissertation, Locating Pedagogy: An Ecological Framework for Teacher Development in a New Composition Landscape, and her scholarship on dual credit and first-year composition will continue to benefit researchers and practitioners in our field for years to come. Dr. McWain’s advocacy for graduate students and contingent faculty will never be forgotten.

Notes

1. While many different terms have been used for similar partnerships elsewhere, such as dual/concurrent enrollment, for the purposes of this profile we use the term preferred by our institution. (Return to text.)

Works Cited

Anson, Chris. Absentee Landlord or Owner-Tenants? Formulating Standards for Dual-Credit Composition Programs. College Credit for Writing in High School: The ‘Taking Care of’ Business, edited by Kristine Hansen and Christine R. Farris, NCTE, 2010, pp. 245-271.

Bazerman, Charles, et al. The Lifespan Development of Writing. NCTE, 2018.

Blattner, Nancy, and Jane Frick. Seizing the Initiative: The Missouri Model for Dual-Credit Composition Courses. WPA, vol. 26, no. 1/2, 2002, pp. 44-56.

Calhoon-Dillahunt, Carolyn. Returning to Our Roots: Creating the Conditions and Capacity for Change. CCC, vol. 70, no. 2, 2018, pp. 273-293.

Burdick, Melanie, and Jane Greer. Paths to Productive Partnerships: Surveying High School Teachers about Professional Development and ‘College-Level’ Writing. WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 41, no. 1, 2017, pp. 82-101.

Denecker, Christine. Transitioning Writers across the Composition Threshold: What We Can Learn from Dual Enrollment Partnerships. Composition Studies, vol. 41, no. 1, 2013, pp. 27-50.

Dual Credit. Raise Your Hand Texas, n.d., https://www.raiseyourhandtexas.org/advocacy/improve/dual-credit/.

Dutkowsky, Donald H., Evensky, Jerry M., and and Edmonds. Gerald S. Economic Literacy Spillovers into the High School General Economics Course from Teaching the Advanced Economics Course. Bridging the High School-College Gap: The Role of Concurrent Enrollment Programs, edited by Gerald S. Edmonds and Tiffany M. Squires, Syracuse UP, 2016, pp. 41-58.

Edmonds. Gerald S. Syracuse University Project Advance: Credit with Credibility. Bridging the High School-College Gap: The Role of Concurrent Enrollment Programs, edited by Gerald S. Edmonds and Tiffany M. Squires, Syracuse UP, 2016, pp. 12-17.

Erford, Jamie. Sense of Place and Concurrent Enrollment: Creating College Places in High School Settings. 2017. University of Findlay, Master’s thesis. Available at http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=findlay1503050057101256.

Ferguson, Collin, Pete Baker, and Dana Burnett. Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Rigor in Dual Enrollment, Accelerated Programs, and Standard Community College Courses. New Directions for Community Colleges, vol. 2015, no. 169, 2015, pp. 83-91.

Hansen, Kristine, et al. How Do Dual Credit Students Perform on College Writing Tasks After They Arrive on Campus? Empirical Data from a Large-Scale Study. WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 38, no. 2, 2015, pp. 56-92.

Kremers, Angela L., and Nolen, Amanda L. Changing the Future: Rigor and high School Mathematics Courses. Bridging the High School-College Gap: The Role of Concurrent Enrollment Programs, edited by Gerald S. Edmonds and Tiffany M. Squires, Syracuse UP, 2016, pp. 59-84.

Malek, Joyce, and Laura R. Micciche, A Model of Efficiency: Pre-College Credit and the State Apparatus. WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 40, no. 2, 2017, pp. 77-97.

McCrimmon, Miles. Bridging the Divide: Dual Enrollment Five Years Later, Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 2014, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 397-400.

McWain, Katie. Finding Freedom at the Composition Threshold: Learning from the Experiences of Dual Enrollment Teachers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 45, no. 1, 2018, pp. 406-424.

McWain, Katherine L. Locating Pedagogy: An Ecological Framework for Teacher Development in a New Composition Landscape. 2018. University of Nebraska-Lincoln, PhD Dissertation.

Moreland, Casie. White Resistance, White Complacency: The Absent-Presence of Race in the Development of Dual Enrollment Programs. 2018. Arizona State University, PhD Dissertation.

Moreland, Casie and Keith D. Miller. The Triumph of Whiteness: Dual Credit Courses and Hierarchical Racism in Texas. Haunting Whiteness: Rhetorics of Whiteness in a ‘Post-Racial’ Era. Edited by Tammie Kennedy, Joyce Middleton, and Krista Ratcliffe. Southern Illinois UP, 2016, pp. 182-194.

National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP). National Concurrent Enrollment Partnership Standards. NACEP, 2009, http://nacep.org/docs/standards/NACEP-Standards-2011.pdf.

Professional Development. The University of Texas at Austin OnRamps. UT Austin, 2016, https://onramps.utexas.edu/teachers/.

Schwalm, David E. High School/College Dual Enrollment. WPA, vol. 15, no. 1/2, 1991, pp. 51-54.

Scott-Stewart, Erin D. Teaching College Writing to High School Students: A Mixed Methods Investigation of Dual Enrollment Composition Students’ Writing Curriculum and Writing Self-Efficacy. 2018. Louisiana State University, PhD Dissertation.

Stancliff, Michael, et al. Collaborative Assessment of Dual Enrollment: The View from Arizona. The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 10., no. 1, 2017, n.p.

Taczak, Kara, and William H. Thelin. When Will We Rewrite the Story? The Other Side of Dual Enrollment. Teaching English in the Two-Year College vol. 41, no.4, 2014, pp.394-96.

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB). Overview: Dual Credit. 2018.

Tinberg, Howard, and Jean-Paul Nadeau. What Happens When High School Students Write in a College Course? A Study of Dual Credit. English Journal, vol. 102, no. 5, 2013, pp. 35-42.

Vivion, Michael J. High School/College Dual Enrollment and the Composition Program. WPA, vol. 15, no. 1/2, 1991, pp. 55-60.

Wilkinson, Caroline. From Dialogue to Collaboration in Dual-Credit Programs. WPA, vol. 42, no. 2, 2019, pp. 80-99.