Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..4
Part I:
Retrospective……………………………………………………...…….5
C.
The pilot continues………………………………………………..10
D. Deviations
from the original proposal……………………………..11
E. Additional
Innovation……………………………………………...11
F.
Conclusion………………………………………………………….13
Part II: Evaluation …………………………………………………………....13
A. Methodology………………………………………………………13
B. Charter-specified measuring
criteria………………………………16
C. National
mainstream standards………………………………...….21
Part III: Explanation of Proposal…………………………………….….…..….23
A. Guidelines………………………………………………………….23
B. Procedures…………………………………………...………..…..24
C. Workshops……………………………………………..………….25
D. Enrollment
caps…………………………………………………….27
E. Independent
Studies…………………………………....…….…….27
J.
Staffing levels and duties………………………………………....…29
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………33
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………..33
Appendix A:
1983 Guidelines for Teaching L-courses…………………………34
Appendix B:
Proposal for Pilot Program, 1997…………………………………36
Appendix C: Southern Writing Program
Pilot Charter, 1997…………………...41
Appendix D: Writing Board Survey of L-course Instructors, Fall 1999…………43
Appendix E:
Workshop Evaluation Reports, Fall 1999-Fall 2001………………44
Appendix F:
Mini-workshop topics/participants, Spring
2000-Spring 2001……78
Appendix G: Proposed
End-of-semester faculty survey, Spring
2000…………..81
Appendix H: End-of-semester student survey, Spring 2000……………………82
Appendix I: Executive Summary, Focus Group Report, September 2001……….83
Appendix J: Guidelines for Proposing and
Teaching an L-course,
updated
Sept. 2001……………………………………………..…84
Appendix K: Procedures
for Proposing an L-course, updated
May 2001………………………………………………..………..86
Appendix L: Complete list of L-courses approved by Writing Board,
Fall 1999-Spring
2001…………………………………………….88
Appendix M: The “Washington State
Handout”………………………………….91
Appendix N: Guidelines for Independent Studies to Receive L-course Credit,
Spring
2001………………………………………………………..92
Appendix O: Budget Information, 2001-2002…………………………………….94
Time
To Teach
A Report from the SCSU Writing Board to the UCF
On the Success of the Southern Writing Program’s Pilot Project
September 27, 2001
Executive
Summary
This report describes and evaluates
the measures taken by the Writing Board to reconsider the ways L-courses are
proposed, taught, and administered at SCSU. The Writing Board was created
through a three-year pilot project sponsored by the UCF and the Vice President
for Academic Affairs.
Part I: Retrospective
provides a brief history of the L-course requirement, including reasons for the
UCF’s approval of the Southern Writing Program pilot: concerns about staffing
patterns; absence of oversight, support for faculty, support for students, and
financial support; and minimal recognition of L-course instructors’ workload.
The section then describes the creation and carrying out of the pilot project.
Part II: Evaluation describes the methods used by the Board to evaluate its suggestions, and responds to each of the charter-mandated criteria established by the pilot’s sponsors:
·
Does the
project foster more consistent character and quality of the L courses?
·
Does the project
provide more effective support and guidance to instructors in the L-courses?
·
Does the
project improve student writing?
·
Does the
project support the different qualities of good writing practice in different
disciplines?
·
Does the structure of
the project avoid unnecessary bureaucracy?
·
Does the
project operate at a reasonable cost which the administration will be prepared
to support over time, and which does not compromise other academic needs?
Part II closes with a discussion of how some
features of the pilot put the program more firmly within the national
mainstream.
Part
III: Explanation of Proposal provides the Board’s specific recommendations on a
number of issues: Guidelines and Procedures; voluntary workshops to
support faculty; enrollment caps for L-courses; Independent Studies receiving
L-course credit; budget information; overload credit for course proposers
during 2001-2002; review of pre-existing L-courses; nomenclature for Writing
Intensive courses; staffing levels and duties; a proposed national Search for
an SWP Director; suggestions for ongoing assessment of the program; and
thoughts about the future relationship between the Writing Board and individual
departments. Rationale for
recommendations is also provided, along with explanations for how certain items
were revised because of input from faculty.
The report also includes 15
appendixes containing documents collected during the pilot.
Time To Teach
A Report from the SCSU Writing Board to the UCF
On the Success of the Southern Writing Program's Pilot Project
September 27, 2001
Introduction
“It’s the kind of pedagogy that you want, but it
takes up all your time.”
--
Comment from participant in SWP focus group, Spring 2001.
Upon completing the third of the focus groups designed to elicit feedback from Southern faculty about the Southern Writing Program and L-courses in general, the facilitator, a professor at the University of Hartford, was asked for her general impressions.
“Oh, my,” she said. “Your faculty is so articulate about teaching. They obviously care about teaching a great deal, and care about students so much.”
Her words
were an excellent summary of what the Writing Board has found about Southern
faculty in the last three years. In
designing, implementing, revising, re-implementing, and re-revising policies
and procedures related to L-courses, the Board has had the opportunity to work
with instructors, speak with departments, and hear fromlarge
groups of faculty —sometimes very vocal groups—about
teaching and learning, writing and reading,. and we We have found that faculty are indeed
passionate about teaching and learning, are very appreciative of support for their
teaching,though and are
also committed to taking a critical stance toward their own teaching, as well
as to any possible interference to their teaching.
We have
found that faculty responded to the pilot project in a somewhat paradoxical
way: while they exhibit a strong impulse toward academic freedom—toward
trusting themselves to provide what they know
believe is
best for their students—while they also
exhibiting a strong belief in some sort of oversight—desiring toensuring ensure that all students are receiving a
consistently good classroom experience at Southern. Certainly, this dual impulse is not new, and can easily be
observed in the larger university, beyond the SWP pilot. For example, while
faculty enjoy the benefits of a strong union that ensures our freedom to teach
in the ways we feel best, the Arts and Sciences faculty
of most schools have also voted in favor of aa
school curriculum committee to approveevaluate
course proposals, after those proposals had been approved by departments, and
before they had been approved by the UCF.
It is this dual impulse among the broad faculty that the Writing Board met, struggled with, and negotiated through for the last three years. And it is this dual impulse that the Board tried very carefully to balance in creating and revising policies and procedures during the pilot project, and in making recommendations when writing this report to the UCF.
Perhaps our
observations about faculty, and our overall attitude about the pilot, are best
summed up in our chosen title for this report: “Time to Teach.” This phrase recognizes what emerged as the
dominant objection to concern about some
features of the pilot: that they took away too much time that faculty hoped to
devote to teaching. Certainly, as
members of the faculty ourselves, the Board is sensitive to,
and in agreement with, the feeling that faculty at Southern devote much of
their time and energy to their teaching, and as such, our report oftenmakes refersence to
time considerations in makingexplaining our
recommendations.
At the same time, though, “Time to
Teach” also recognizes the kind of energy and enthusiasm that we were greeted
with when proposing other many parts
of the pilot, particularly those dealing with support for faculty, such as
workshops: faculty embraced our attempts to introduce new options for their
teaching and to facilitate conversations about learning, responding with an
enthusiastic return to their classrooms. One workshop participant, in response
to a written evaluation question on how the workshop would affect her teaching,
responded, “I will certainly be applying specific ideas into my class(es). You
got me thinking about this coming semester's courses!” Responses like this have been common:
faculty feel energized by having the opportunity to talk with their colleagues
about what they have been doing, and want to do, in their classrooms. Of course, such talk often returns to the
other “time” issue: finding time to be able to do it.
In this report, we will discuss what we have learned over the past three years about L-courses, their administration, and their teaching. Part I: Retrospective provides a brief history of L-courses at Southern: their initial development, the UCF’s desire to evaluate them through the creation of the SWP pilot project, and a narrative of what the SWP completed during the three year pilot. Part II: Evaluation discusses the Board’s responses to the evaluation criteria set up by the UCF in the pilot’s charter, and offers additional evaluative measures to supplement them. Finally, Part III: Explanation of Proposal includes recommendations offered by the Board regarding L-courses and their administration, a proposal that incorporates elements of the original (1983) L-course guidelines, elements of the pilot project, and new elements developed as a result of receiving feedback from faculty and students.
Part
I: Retrospective
In 1983, the UCIC (?) faculty voted to establish approved L-courses as a component of the general
education curriculum. The “L” was to
stand for “Literacy,” in recognition of students’ need to improve their basic
reading and writing skills (see Appendix A, page 34).
The approval of this requirement was fairly “cutting edge” at the time. It is generally accepted that the first Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) program had been developed at Beaver College in 1978, and that by 1983, a small but growing number of colleges were requiring writing-intensive courses as part of their general education curriculum. WAC programs, exemplified by Michigan Tech’s program, encouraged teachers to use writing to help students learn course material, and to simultaneously help
students develop their
written communication skills[1]. As Toby Fulwiler explains, programs
generally took either a “writing-to-learn” or “learning-to-write” approach in
those days; that is, students either used informal writing (such as journals)
to work through course content, or they were expected to focus on learning the
writing principles of their particular discipline.[2] Based on UCIC
documents from that time [??????], Southernclearly
primarily took
a “learn-to-write” approach, focusing on the formal written product. In 1985, the UCIC approved the following slightly revised guidelines were approved
to help instructors proposing L courses develop their proposals:. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC)
oversaw the
L-course process. An L-course proposal was approved if it demonstrated
that the proposed course met three criteria: 1) the course required 25 pages of
writing; 2) students were allowed to revise papers; and 3) the writing was of a
critical or analytical nature.
When the UCF was founded, the University Wide Impact
Committee (UWIC) continued to accept L-course proposals from any faculty
member. However, once approved, the course could be taught as an L-course by
any instructor. While this model has
been successful in some ways (certainly, a number of faculty see nothing wrong
with the system), by the mid-1990’s, the UCF recognized that L-course students
and faculty were meeting with a number of problems:
The UCF recognized There were several problems related towhich how instructors were asked to teach
L-courses.
Under the current system, faculty had not necessarily been asked if they had any training in teaching writing-intensive courses, or, in some cases, any desire to teach such courses. While some might argue that those who can write well themselves can easily teach writing, research from composition studies suggests otherwise: the teaching of writing involves a number of skills that are different from writing itself.[3]
In addition, some of the instructors asked to teach L-courses had been brand new faculty, with little experience in the teaching of their disciplines, let alone in the additional burden of teaching a writing-intensive course.
Among the most
controversial problems identified by the UCF was the lack of oversight of L-courses.
According to the proposal process in place, o Once a
courseis was approved
as an L, it was never revisited by any curricular body. While many L-courses
met the guidelines set by the UCIC in 1985, a fair significant
number did not. Each member of the Board, and a good number of faculty members
whoto spoke with the Board, had
heard stories from students that certain L-courses were popular because of
their reduced knew of
existing L-courses (including, in some cases, their own) that did not meet
the L-course requirements. Such stories from
students are anecdotal. (During
the course of the pilot, the Board was asked to consider, and quickly rejected,
the suggestion that the Board should “sniff out” these rogue courses; the Board
has no interest in serving as “The Writing Police,” in any capacity.) However, such stories came from such a wide
variety of sources that the UCF considered them in deciding to reconsider the L
requirement.
While students
were affected from lack of oversight, so too were instructors: given the
staffing patterns above, in which some L-course instructors had not voluntarily
sought to have taught L-courses, combined with a lack of oversight, a fair
number of instructors equated knew of
only one of the threeUWIC requirements with for L courses: namely that an L courseis
one that requires 25 pages of writing,
and nothing more.
In addition to a lack of oversight, the original L-course system also suffered from a lack of support for faculty. Particularly given staffing patterns, which meant that many inexperienced instructors taught L-courses, many faculty felt they would benefit from some kind of support for their L course teaching. Even experienced instructors could benefit from hearing about new ideas, or in discussing well-established ideas with other interested faculty.
In addition to lack support for faculty in the form of workshops or discussions, an additional problem is the lack of recognition that L- courses simply require more work than non writing-intensive courses. While still maintaining the proper amount of course content, instructors also need to, at minimum, read and grade more papers. More helpful teachers also take time to comment on papers in the hopes of receiving revised versions from students (which, in turn, need to be re-read and re-graded). Still other faculty will go a step further and take class time to teach writing concepts to the full class, or to meet with students individually to discuss writing problems. This, again, is done in addition to the instructor’s “regular” work during the course.
And under the current system, such extra work is not recognized, as faculty with little or no training in the teaching of writing may be assigned L- courses. But most egregiously, L courses are given an
exceedingly high enrollment cap of 25 students, far too many for a dedicated teacher of writing to do her job.
The Campus Writing Center was
created to serve all Southern students, though it is often erroneously thought of as
someplace where only 100-level students get help (In fact,
fewer than 35% of
its clients come from English 098, 100, or 101).
remedial
help—or so it is thought. The Writing Center was created to serve all Southern
students, though it is traditionally thought of as only someplace where 100
level students get help (and in fact some XXXXX percent of its clients come
from English 098, 100, or 101).
The UCF saw a need to increase student support, as well as publicize currently available support, for students who write as part of their course work, at every level.
All of these
problemsrelate back to correlate with (and areperhaps in part caused by) a lack of financial
support for L-courses. While, occasionally, individual instructors would get
together to discuss writing, and an occasional Curriculum Development Grant
helped facilitate discussion, there has been no systematic and defined
financial commitment from the institution to support L course instructors and
their students. Without financial
support, there can be no oversight or support for faculty.
Despite its
“cutting edge” beginnings, the L-course program suffered over time, standing
still as the national WAC movement evolved.
This no doubt occurred in part because of its lack of oversight and
support for instructors—no problems were identified, no help was provided, and
so no change occurred. By 1995,
however, L-courses were out of step with nationally recognized models, such as
Washington State University, Clemson University, and Michigan Technological
University, which did provide support and oversight. Most schools with a writing-intensive requirement provided at
least minimal support. [4]
In light of these problems, the UCF voted in the fall of 1998 to create a pilot project to research and evaluate L-courses, create and implement possible solutions, revise and test those suggestions, and recommend programmatic changes. Appendix B, page 36, contains the proposal to the UCF that created the pilot. The Southern Writing Program was the name given to the project, which included a Writing Board to create policy and an Interim Director to implement policy. The pilot was co-sponsored by the UCF and the Vice President of Academic Affairs; Appendix C, page 41 contains the charter for the pilot.
In responding to the problems identified by the UCF, the pilot’s overarching goal was to create a “culture of writing” at Southern: helping students see the value of writing in their academic careers and beyond, and providing faculty with the means to help students see that value.
The co-sponsors of the pilot together selected the
Writing Board, made up of nine appointed faculty (three from each of three
schools or school groupings (Arts and Sciences; Education and Health and Human
Services; and Business and Communication, Information, and Library Sciences),
plus , several other faculty members who
serve as ex officio members: a
representative of the UCF; the coordinator of English composition; and the
director of the writing center. In addition, the Board decided that all meetings
would be open to all faculty members; one faculty member has served as a
regular participant since the beginning, and a second faculty member
has also served during the third year of the Pilot Program.
The appointed members were given staggered 3-year terms.. Chosen in the spring of 1999, the original members
of the Board were:
Chosen in the spring of 1999, the original
members of the Board were:
Kerry Grant (Math)
Mark Heidmann (English)
Carina Vocisano (Psychology)
Courtney McManus (Student)
Beth Taylor (Special Education)
Tony Maltese (Social Work)
Bernadette Madara (Nursing)
Jeff Sousa (Student)
Deborah Savage (Economics)
Frank Harris (Journalism)
Frank Tavares (Communication)
Erica Gordon (Student)
Tom Ferrucci (Director of the Writing Center)
Sue Ellen Holbrook (Coordinator of Composition, English)
Megan Macomber (UCF Rep., English)
Mark Heidmann was elected by the Board to serve as chair.
In 2000, Terri Bennett was appointed to replace Kerry Grant, and Kelly Ritter
became the representative of the English composition program.
In
the late summer of 1999, the Board sought an interim director for the
program. It eventually chose Robert
McEachern (English), whose field of expertise is Composition
and Rhetoric, and who had previously
taught and/or tutored in WAC programs in two other universities.
In
the fall 1999, the Board began time-intensive work, meeting weekly for three
hours at a time. During that semester,
the Board:
·
Drafted
Guidelines for teaching an L-course
·
Developed
procedures for proposing an L-course
·
Solicited
proposals for L-courses, approving all six that it received
·
Developed and
offered a one-day prototype workshop for L-course faculty
·
Began the
ongoing process of seeking feedback from faculty and students throughout
Southern
During
this semester, and throughout the pilot, the Board also sought information from
other programs to discover and possibly implement innovations that would be
appropriate for Southern faculty and students.
While the widely respected WAC program at the University of Missouri was
chosen as an initial model for the pilot, the Board quickly
realized recognized that manysome of
Missouri’s policies and procedures were not appropriate for Southern. Therefore, the Board also researched other
WAC programs, testing features from many other respected programs, including:
· Washington State University
· Northeastern University
· Michigan Technological University
· Clemson University
· University of Louisville
· University of North Carolina--Greensboro
· Boston University
· Indiana University
· University of Nebraska-Kearney
References
to some of these programs appear in the rest of the report, particularly when
the Board borrowed from these programs in order to test ideas. Other programs were used to reaffirm that
some of the Board’s policies were indeed in the national mainstream.
C. The pilot continues
Over
the next three semesters (spring 2000-spring 2001), the Board continued to
revise its policies and procedures, based on feedback from faculty.
For
example, immediately following its one-day prototype workshop in October 1999,
the Board voted to expand the workshop to two days, based on feedback from
participants. The two-day format has continued as the model (although an
attempt to expand to two and a half days, again based on faculty feedback, was
attempted in January 2001, andabandoned). met with only mixed
success).
In
the spring of 2000, the SWP also began offering a series of mini-workshops of
one or two hours each. These workshops
were meant to supplement the two-day workshops by offering topics, suggested by
faculty, which were either covered too briefly during two-day workshops, or not
covered at all. The SWP has offered three or four such
workshops each semester since.
The
Board also continued to solicit and receive L-course proposals. In addition to the six it received and
approved in fall 1999, the Board also approved 13 in spring 2000, eight in fall
2000, and five in spring 2001. As of
September 1, 2001, the Board had another two proposals waiting for discussion
and approval.
D.
Deviations from the original proposal
While the Board stuck closely to the
original proposal, some elements of that proposal were envisioned as
coming into use only if/when the Writing Program became an
established part of Southern’s curricular structure; thus, for example, the pilot did not hire
secretarial help nor employ tutors for as many hours as the proposal
mentioned. It The Board also encountered a number of
problems, as discussed above, and created solutions based on the needs of
faculty. It should also be noted that
the Chair of the Writing Board discussed sought and
received approval for each most of these changes from
with
the UCF and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
In addition to making changes in
response to problems, the Board was also proactive in creating additional
innovations that it believed would help it reach the goals established for it
by the UCF. Again,
these innovations received approval of the UCF before being implemented.
It should be further noted that, like many changes made by the Board, some of
these innovations came from suggestions from faculty.
These innovations include:
· Course Development Coordinator. The Board, in spring 2000, voted to create a new position called the Course Development Coordinator (CDC). This position took over duties from the Interim Director and Chair of the Board that involved the L-course proposal process. The CDC serves as initial contact for any faculty member interested in proposing an L-course; works with the faculty member in developing proposals, including making suggestions for revision when asked to do so; serves as an advocate for the faculty member, should the faculty member not be able to attend a Board meeting at which her proposal is discussed; and serves as liaison with the UCF in submitting necessary paperwork on behalf of faculty members whose courses are approved. The CDC also attends Board meetings, serves on Board committees, and assists the director in preparing and conducting workshops.
The CDC has proven to be an excellent addition to the SWP. The Board sees a central part of its mission to be encouraging the facilitating the teaching of L courses, and the CDC’s devotion to the process has helped this mission.
·
Subcommittee
review to speed
flow of
proposal review. During the first semester that the Board considered
proposals (fall 1999), the
entire Board read and discussed each proposal. This, of course, took a great deal of time, and contributed to very long (though productive) meetings. In order to speed the flow of course approvals, the Board decided to divide itself into a number of subcommittees that would consider course proposals, meet with interested proposers, vote on the proposals, and then make a recommendation to the full Board. By cutting down on the number of people handling the proposal, the Board managed to cut down the time, and the potential bureaucracy, involved in getting courses approved.
· Writing contest. In the spring of 2001, the Board completed its first L-course Writing Contest, sponsored by Southern’s Alumni Association. Students from three divisions were awarded cash prizes for papers written in L-courses, judged by faculty from the History, Education, and Communication departments.
·
Web site with
links. Another innovation, in
keeping with the mission to support faculty and students, was the creation of a
web site. The sight includes
information about workshops, links for faculty and students, and information
about the proposal process. The site
has proved fairly popular (it had over 200 visitors during the spring 2000 semester,
according to the site’s counter), and allows the Board to reach faculty who are
unable to attend workshops. The URL for the site is
http://www.SouthernCT.edu/committees/writingprogram
·
Library. [Skip this? Not very well used. In fact, not used at all. Who has time? I’d suggest we say what we tried, maybe
tallying the numbers and kinds of resources gathered, then suggest we need to
see whether it still may be valuable.] In an effort to provide faculty with print resources that they
can employ on their own, the SWP has developed a small but growing library of
materials. With about 100 items
available, the library offers books, journal articles, and workshop materials
dealing with writing across the curriculum, specific issues related to the
teaching of writing (including revision, research, argumentation, etc.), and resources focusing on
writing within particular academic disciplines. The library is currently
housed in the office of the Interim Director.
·
Expanded
Relationship with Writing Center. Because
of space limitations, the tutors hired by the Board were initially housed in
the Campus Writing Center. However,
this “make-do” arrangement evolved into a productive relationship with the
Writing Center, in which the SWP and the UWC provide one another with
cooperative support. This relationship culminated in the creation of a Liaison
Committee, created by the Board and the Writing Center Director, in an attempt
to initiate a dialogue
among all
of the writing programs at Southern, including the SWP, the Writing Center, the
Composition Program, the Honors College, SCORE, and others). The goal in this expanded relationship is
to, again, strengthen the “culture of writing” at Southern, and encourage
consistency in writing instruction across the university.
·
Rewards for
faculty. Finally, the Board has
found ways to reward faculty for the time they invest in teaching
L-courses. Lack of time, as the Board
knew from its members own experiences, and through conversations with faculty,
is a major problem for Southern faculty.
Creating L-course proposals and teaching and revising L-courses requires
a large investment of time. To
compensate faculty, the Board sought and received approval for the following
rewards:
· A $200 stipend for attending a two-day workshop
· 1/3 credit for creating an L-course proposal
·
Reduction of the enrollment limits for L-courses, and a further reduction for courses approved by the
Board
Overall, the Board is pleased with the way it responded to the UCF’s charge. The Board proposed and implemented those policies and procedures stipulated by its charter; sought input from faculty during the process; revised its policies and procedures in the interest of faculty and students; and tested its revisions. The Board’s evaluation of the program, in accordance with the guidelines established by the UCF, support its view that beneficial changes can and should be made to the way L-courses are proposed, supported, and overseen.
The SWP’s charter specified a number of criteria (listed below) for measuring the success of the pilot program. In this section of the report, the Board first discusses the methods by which it collected data for evaluating the pilot. It then discusses and responds to the specific criteria that the UCF established for its evaluation. Finally, it seeks to broaden the perspective of the evaluation by situating the pilot in terms of the national mainstream of WAC programs.
In evaluating the
pilot program, the Writing Board collected data from a number of sources,
beginning soon after the Board was constituted, and ending only a few weeks
ago. [assuming
we do Focus groups in the late summer/early fall].
The means used to collect information included:
for a copy of the student survey.]
Ultimately, however, time considerations once again played a factor, and the five original groups were not able to meet as planned. However, four very productive focus groups containing members from four of the five original populations did meet and provide feedback (the student group being the exception).
The focus groups represented an important opportunity for the Board to hear
from faculty who had not necessarily been able to provide feedback to the Board through some other means. While the focus groups confirmed much of what the Board had already observed, they also provided new information in a number of areas. [See Appendix I, page 83, for the summary from Dr. Morgan’s report on the results of the focus groups.]
Overall, the Board was satisfied with the means by which it was able to gather feedback on the pilot, and is satisfied that, given the constraints of faculty and student time demands, the Board had heard from a large segment of the university population. Based on the feedback it received, the Board believes it was able to respond to the UCF’s required measuring criteria.
As part of the SWP charter, the UCF asked the Board to focus on six criteria in
determining the success of the pilot. Throughout the pilot period, the Board kept the
criteria in mind, and continuously sought feedback in response to these questions. Below
are the six questions, with the Board’s responses to them.
1.
Does the project foster more consistent character and quality of the L courses?
Yes.
The Board is fully
aware that this question itself is somewhat controversial: a careful definition
of “consistency” must be applied and carried out by the Board. Throughout the two years of the pilot, the
Board has operated on a broad and inclusive definition of “consistency,” being
careful not to confuse that word with “conformity.” In other words, the Board was careful to ensure that faculty were
encouraged to and able to use writing in ways that best served their own
teaching, the needs of their departments, and the needs of their students.
This criterion also seemed to carry
much weight in the original charter. One of the reasons for the desire to
reform L-courses in the first place was to address the perception that not all
L-courses were equal, at least in terms of required work from students, as
discussed abobe above in
Part I.
Although some faculty members object to this idea, there is only one way to ensure that L-courses are taught on a consistent basis (that is, to ensure that all L-courses meet the basic requirements concerning page numbers, revision, and type of writing, as mandated in the 1983 guidelines). In order to ensure consistency, there needs to be some kind of oversight of L-courses: a course needs to be proposed, shown how it meets the guidelines, and then perhaps updated to show it continues to meet guidelines. Further, this consistency can be best met when the course is taught by the faculty member or members who actually proposed the course, a change from the current practice, but very much in line with the original, 1983 policy.
The Board proposed and tested these consistency-ensuring policies, requesting written proposals in which instructors address the issues discussed in the guidelines. The Board wrote, revised, and re-revised a set of Guidelines based on the original 1983 L-
course guidelines [see Appendix J, page 84, for a copy of the most recent version of the guidelines], as well as a series of procedures for proposing an L course, also much revised over two years [see Appendix K, page 86, for a copy of the most recent version of the procedures.]
And so, the Board can say that the proposed changes have resulted in more consistency in L courses. All 32 of the courses the Board has approved have met the same requirements, while still allowing much freedom for the instructors to teach them in the way that makes most sense for them. [See Appendix L, page 88 for a list of the courses approved by the Board.]
This question, however, asks for evidence for a second criterion: the “quality” as well as the character needs to be more consistent. Comments from faculty indicate satisfaction with the quality of their courses after involvement with the SWP, particularly in the ways they were able to incorporate information from the workshops. One instructor in particular is quoted in the Focus Group report as saying, “You, as an instructor, if you want to go to the Writing Board, they are helpful and I think their goal is to help you run a quality course.” Based on the feedback we have received from faculty, they are pleased with the quality of their courses.
2. Does
the project provide more effective support and guidance to instructors in the
L-courses?
Yes.
In a sense, any support and guidance would have been “more effective,” since before the pilot, there was virtually no formal support for L-course instructors. The pilot provided a number of ways for L-course instructors to receive support.
The primary means of support, in the Board’s opinion, is the semi-annual, pre-semester, two-day workshop. In these workshops, instructors who wish to include writing in their courses are presented with strategies for dealing with such basic issues as assignment design, commenting on student papers, and grading written products. And while the issues are basic, the approaches are not: they are designed to both present a solid foundation for first-time WAC instructors, and at the same time provide new perspectives on these topics for more experienced teachers.
The workshop evaluations in Appendix E (page 44) provide strong evidence for instructors’ satisfaction with the workshops. Participants appreciate the opportunity to not only talk about writing, but, more importantly, to talk about teaching with colleagues who are equally passionate about being in the classroom. The Board is especially proud of the success of the workshops.
While the key component of the faculty-support arm of the program, the two-day workshops are only one means of support. There are several others, some mandated by the charter, and others added because of faculty suggestions and feedback:
· Mini workshops (see appendix F, page 78)
· Tutors dedicated to L-courses. Tutors not only meet with students who need help, but also visit classrooms at the invitation of L-course instructors to talk about writing issues with students.
· A web page (www.SouthernCT.edu/committees/writingprogram) that
provides information about workshops, tutors, L-course proposals, and L-course waivers, and also provides useful links for both students and instructors.
·
A small library of articles and books of
interest to L-course instructors.
· Opportunities to consult with SWP staff about writing issues.
· Opportunities to meet with the Course Development Coordinator and other Board members about creating and submitting L-course proposals.
In addition to the very positive workshop evaluations, the focus groups also yielded positive feedback about the Board’s initiatives to support faculty in their teaching (in fact, “support for workshops” was one of the themes identified by Dr. Morgan in her report). According to one participant, “The value [of the August 2000 workshop]—was a 9.5 on a scale of 1-10. First of all, it was very well done, very professional. I didn’t feel there was a lot of wasted fill….discussions, voluminous handouts….we got a huge resource...to pick and choose what is appropriate for your own discipline.” Another comment on one of the materials provided to all workshop participants: “That text they use is so incredibly useful to give you the tools to be able to do what you can do….I feel that I can contemplate teaching a writing course now because I feel I’m empowered.”
3. Does the project improve student writing?
Inconclusive.
The Board would like to report that
student writing has improved as a result of the pilot, and believes that the
writing of students in SWP-supported courses has indeed improved. However, the Board also has had a
difficult time providing a definitive answer to the question, for several
reasons.
As mentioned above, the Board did manage to collect student evaluations from three courses during one semester (see appendix H, page 82). After consulting with faculty, however, we decided that such an evaluation was too obtrusive, particularly on faculty class time, and discontinued it.
The Board briefly considered, and
quickly rejected, the idea of collecting samples of student writing and
evaluating them. The idea was rejected
because it, too, seemed too obtrusive, not on faculty time, but on faculty
freedom to teach. The Board has, and
would continue to resist vehemently, any notion of its becoming the “Writing
Police,” and felt any second-guessing, real or perceived, of L-course
instructors’ evaluations of their own students’ work, would ultimatelybe
entirely inappropriate.
The Board considered other possible objective means of evaluating student writing, and concluded that there really are no objective means of evaluation. Such thinking is very much in line with current thinking in the field of evaluating student writing. [5] Even an “objective” test of grammar is ultimately subjective, in that it values grammar above other features of writing, something the program’s policies have resisted.
And so, the Board is unable to definitively answer this question. It can say,
however, based on informal interviews with faculty, and on focus group results, that faculty who have taught a Board-approved L-course are more satisfied with the writing that their students are turning in. Ultimately, the Board believes that faculty satisfaction with their students’ improvement should be the true measure of success in this area. While the focus group participants reported on several problems they see as they teach L-courses (students’ misunderstanding of the reason for L-courses and student complaints about the workload, for example), they also saw L-courses as improving students’ writing and thinking, an increasing their confidence, and helping to prepare them for their careers.
4. Does
the project support the different qualities of good writing practice in
different disciplines?
Yes.
The Board has been careful from the beginning of the pilot to not only support the qualities of good writing in different disciplines, but also to encourage L-course proposals from instructors from disciplines where L-courses are not often taught.
The Guidelines for Proposing and Teaching an L-course (appendix J, page 84) stress in several places the Board’s attempts to respect individual departments and disciplines. The following quotes are taken directly from the Guidelines:
The
Writing Board wants the L-course program to include courses and instructors in
all disciplines; we particularly want to foster L-courses in such previously
under-represented fields as applied arts and social sciences, and the technical
and quantitative sciences.
Critical (analytical) writing addresses a question for
which there is more than one plausible
interpretation, explanation, analysis, or evaluation, and thus requires
original thought from the student. This original thought both demonstrates and
assists the student’s mastery of course material. In other words, in L-courses
students practice solving discipline-based problems through writing.
Instructors communicate their knowledge of writing in
their disciplines to their students through a variety of means such as paper
comments, conferences, handouts, and in-class presentations on writing.
The Writing Board recognizes that in some fields, students in lower-level classes
are in no position to challenge the maxims of the discipline or to take a stand
on unsettled questions. In such fields,
students may be required to do critical (analytical) writing in a number of
ways: to create a traditional research
paper in which a thesis statement summarizes the writer’s use and
interpretation of studies by experts, to explain the reasoning one could use in solving problems or
applying a concept, to write dialogues
that represent distinct perspectives on an issue, to articulate the distinction
between elegant and inelegant approaches to a project (e.g., designs for an
experiment to prove a given hypothesis), or to explain a technical concept to a
real or imagined audience of non-experts.
In addition, the two-day workshops attempt to address discipline-specific needs (in ways that are possible in a general, multidisciplinary workshop), for example, by grouping faculty according to discipline to stress the disciplinary differences and similarities of certain teaching practices.
The Board has also begun offering mini-workshops to select groups of faculty based on disciplinary needs, by offering a mini-workshop for faculty in Math, Natural Sciences, and Applied Sciences in January 2001. In accordance with faculty demand, the Board will offer similar workshops to other groups of faculty.
The Writing Contest described above also respected the needs of different disciplines. While writing from such traditionally writing-intensive disciplines as English and Journalism were among the winners, the list also included disciplines like Chemistry and Exercise Science.
Finally, the Interim Director has carefully selected tutors not only for their ability to understand how writing is taught (the SWP’s three tutors have also been composition program adjunct instructors), but also based on their experience outside of the discipline of English. Of its two current tutors, one received an undergraduate degree in Public Administration; the other has worked as a registered pharmacy technician, journalist, and court victims’ advocate. Each tutor understands and respects that the writing of different disciplines have different formats, acceptable uses of evidence, and other needs.
5. Does the structure of the project avoid unnecessary bureaucracy?
We believe so. However, the Board also recognizes that there are faculty who disagree.
The Board believes that the key word to this criterion is “unnecessary.” Given the Board’s charge in criterion “a” above (“Does the project foster more consistent character and quality of the L courses?”), the Board believes that some oversight, some paperwork, and thus some bureaucracy, is necessary.
The Board has also worked hard to eliminate what faculty have reported as, and what the Board agrees to be, unnecessary bureaucracy. Guidelines and Procedures have been revised (see section III below), and other measures have been added to make the L-course proposal process run as smoothly as possible. These additional measures include the addition of the Course Development Coordinator to shepherd proposals through the process; a subcommittee structure to speed up approvals; and a tracking feature on the SWP web site to allow faculty to see at what stage their proposals are in the process.
Still, as the focus groups made clear, faculty are still concerned with the issue of bureaucracy, especially as it relates to the possible review of existing L-courses (see section III part H).
Overall, the Board fits within a well-established model of curricular review. The proposal to the UCF adds no new bureaucracy, except for a one-page update form due approximately every three years, and as a way of supporting consistency in L-courses, as required in criterion #1 above.
6. Does
the project operate at a reasonable cost which the administration will be
prepared to support over time, and which does not compromise other academic
needs?
Yes.
The Program actually ran under
budget for the course of the pilot. A proposed budget, fully adequate
for current needs, has
been approved for the 2001-2002 school
year. In
addition, the Vice President for Academic Affairs has made a
commitment to support the Program in the future at necessary levels, including
an agreement to conduct a national search for an additional full-time
tenure-track position for a Director, if the UCF
votes to approve this report’s recommendations (distributed as a separate proposal and discussed in more detail in Part III below); also, see III. K. below for additional budget information.
C. National mainstream standards
In addition to considering the criteria established by the UCF, the Board also considered the ways its proposals compared to national mainstream standards. In attempting to gauge the mainstream, the Board turned to a number of sources, including published surveys of Writing Across the Curriculum programs from around the country. These surveys are somewhat dated, however, and so were supplemented with more personal contact with directors and instructors from other programs, through discussions on the WAC-L listserv, meetings with WAC personal, and attendance at national conferences on WAC and related topics.
While it is true that every program is unique, and has its own needs, it is also true that certain practices are common because they are based on solid research. The SWP’s proposal meets with national mainstream standards in several ways:
1. Support for faculty
As outlined in the Fulwiler and Young collection, Programs that Work, support for faculty is, in the view of some WAC specialists, what makes a collection of courses into a “program.” The addition of support puts Southern firmly in the mainstream.
2. Limited
Bureaucracy
At a session of the Fifth National Writing Across the Curriculum conference in June, 2001, participants received what has for several years been known as “The Washington State Handout” (see Appendix M, page 91). According to one speaker, whenever it seems anyone wants to discuss programmatic structure, the program at Washington State University is held up as the model. For some, the model is positive; for others, negative. In the Board’s opinion, Washington State’s program is positive in its efficient structuring of every aspect of students’ and instructors’ writing lives. The Board also feels, however, that such a model is inappropriate for Southern, and as such has taken a more “hands-off” approach, giving individual instructors more freedom in designing courses and evaluating student writing.
3.
One Instructor per Course
WAC programs run on a number of models: in some, such as Northeastern University’s, the writing-intensive requirement is administered and taught completely by the English department. Others, such as Michigan Tech’s, see writing as not only the responsibility of every department, but also as a tool for learning and teaching within every department. Thus, each course is designed according to the individual instructor’s needs and beliefs, and is approved as a writing-intensive course on that basis. Descriptions of programs in a number of publications indicate that this one instructor/one course-per-proposal format is the national norm.[6] Informal discussions with WAC administrators at a number of other schools back up this perception.
4.
Attention to Needs of Individual Departments
Similarly, programs that do allow individual departments to offer writing-intensive courses are careful to provide support for those departments and individualized attention to those who request it (see footnote below).
5.
Not requiring workshops
In the spring of 2001, the Writing Board voted to eliminate its workshop requirement, a change from its original policy, and one that it considered very carefully. One of the several factors that led to the decision was benchmark research it had undertaken earlier in that semester. While there are some WAC programs that require instructors to attend workshop (including Marshall and CUNY), there are more that make the workshops “voluntary, but strongly recommended,” as one program administrator put it. By taking away the requirement, the Board feels the program is more within mainstream models.
6.
SWP as national model
Finally,the
our own pilot has been held up as a
model in several national contexts.
First, the program was the subject
of a panel at the Fifth National Writing Across the Curriculum conference in
June, 2001. Facaulty from the U.S. and Canada attended the
session to hear about the changes that the Board has proposed and revised, to
ask advice from the panelists (the interim Director of the program, the Chair
of the Board, and a faculty member who has had a course approved by the Board),
and to offer suggestions.
Second, the pilot has been mentioned positively in two national publications. In an article entitled, "Writing Intensive Courses and WAC" in WAC for the New Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing-Across-The-Curriculum Programs, edited by Susan H. McLeod, Eric Miraglia, Margot Soven, Christopher Thaiss, published in 2001 by the National Council of Teachers of English. The pilot is also discussed in an article entitled "Writing Across the Curriculum" in The Writing Program Administrator's Resource: A Guide to Reflective Institutional Practice, edited by Stuart C. Brown and Theresa Enos, forthcoming March 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Press. Both were written by Martha Townsend, who has co-facilitated workshops for the SWP. The latter publication reads in part, “To this list of successful WAC programs, I would add Southern Connecticut State University, for its thoughtful, deliberate revivification of a previously dormant WAC program..."
In accordance with the proposal to establish the pilot program approved by the UCF in 1998, the Board has submitted a separate proposal of recommendations to the UCF [“Proposal to Establish the Southern Writing Program”]. This section provides more background and rationale for those recommendations.
Given that the pilot has met the criteria
established by the UCF, and the Writing Board has satisfied itself in creating
a program that fits within national mainstream standards, we present the
following recommendnations
for the proposing and teaching of L-courses, and administering of the program.
A.
Guidelines
Appendix J, page 84, lists the Board’s proposed guidelines for proposing and teaching and L-course.
In developing these guidelines, the
Board began with,
and remained true to the spirit of, the original (1983)
guidelines, which required that an L-course has have three
elements: students write a total of 25 pages, the writing is of a
critical/analytical nature, and the course contains a revision component. The
Board did, over the past two years, revise its thinking on several aspects of
these three elements, as described below.
· Page counts/word counts. The Board decided to change the measurement of the requirement from pages to words, since technology easily allows students to write less by increasing font size and decreasing margin size. However, that same technology allows students to quickly and easily check the number of words in a document. The Board asks that paper lengths be referred to in proposals by words, rather than pages. This will ultimately help ensure the kind of “consistent character” that the UCF expressed concern about in the charter.
· Number of pages/words required. The Board decreased the number of total words required from 6,250 to 5,000 (approximately 25 pages to approximately 20 pages of typed, double-spaced, in 12 point font). The decrease was in response to faculty concerns over time: that is, instructors felt they could respond to student writing more thoroughly, and thus could better help students, if there was slightly less writing to respond to. The Board also took faculty time constraints into consideration by suggesting that some revised papers (as opposed to merely edited papers) could count toward the word count requirement.
·
Expanded
definition of critical/analytical writing.
In an attempt to allow more courses to be proposed as L-courses (indeed,
the Board’s attitude is that most any
courses could
can potentially be taught as L-courses),
the Board offers an expanded definition of critical/analytical writing, one
that was revised several times over the course of the pilot, as the Board
looked at more and more samples of effective assignments. The Board decided that assignments could
encourage critical thinking as part of the process of the assignment, rather than just the product of the assignment. In other words, since the writing for the course should above all else help students learn the content of the course, an assignment need not result in “traditional,” thesis-driven academic writing, as long as students apply or think through the content of the course as part of the writing. This expansion of the definition helped the Board meet the UCF criterion that different disciplines’ notions of good writing are recognized.
·
More precise
definition of Revision. The Board
also offers a more precise definition of revision, distinguishing this process
from “editing.” Revision involves a reconsideration of “global” writing issues
such as thesis or claim, evidence, examples, organizations, and meeting the
assignment. Editing, on the other hand, involves “local” issues such as
grammar, punctuation, mechanics, spelling, and formatting. While both are important parts of the
writing process, it is in the global issues that students apply what they have
learned in the content of each course.
Furthermore, revision is recognized to be a natural part of the process
of any writer (as can be attested by those L-course instructors who regularly write),
rather than a sign that the writer has done improperly written poorly.
Thus, the guidelines make a distinction between revision and editing, and
encourage instructors to comment on global as well as local issues, recognizing
that revision is a tool for learning, not a punishment for making mistakes.
· Amount of required revised writing. In order to encourage students to see revision as a natural part of the writing process and a tool for learning, the Board has required a certain amount of writing be revised in each class. Originally, the Board had required 2500 words [10 pages] of writing be revised. However, in reviewing comments from faculty, the Board has decided to make the language of the Guidelines more flexible, encouraging a “significant amount” of revision, and suggesting 1500-2500 words as a guideline. As with much of the Board’s proposal, the Board carefully weighed the benefit to students that revision can offer, with the needs of faculty. Ultimately, the revised wording can satisfy both sets of needs.
These guidelines represent the Board’s attempt to retain the character of the original L-course requirements, while both clarifying certain terms and expanding certain definitions to make them more inclusive, while still meeting the UCF’s overall criteria for success.
As with the Guidelines above, the Board has made several changes over the course of the pilot to the Procedures for submitting an L-course proposal, changes that came in response to faculty concerns. And, as with the Guidelines, the Board began with the procedures for proposing an L-course already in place, and then revised them based on feedback from faculty. The full set of procedures is listed in Appendix K, page 86; however, comments on some aspects are necessary:
·
No required
workshops. The procedures in effect for most ofduring the
pilot required L faculty to attend a two-day workshop before teaching an
L-course, and attend a mini-workshop during any semester in which they taught
an L. The Board has, in its final
recommended procedures, dropped both requirements. The motives for these requirements were noble at best, benign at
worst: in the requirements were an attempting to create a “culture of writing,” since a
two-day workshop would allow faculty to begin to share a common vocabulary for
discussing writing, one that they could impart to students, and one that they
were free to use to disagree with or criticize any aspects of the workshop that
they chose. The Board felt that, in order to meet the UCF’s criterion that
L-courses have a consistent character, some way of requiring faculty to
consider common goals and techniques would be necessary. After much productive discussion amongst
Board members and with faculty from across the university, the Board felt that,
should the proposal be implemented, there has already been a great enough
number of faculty that have taken the workshop (close to 25% of the faculty),
that’s its goal of increasing the
conversation about writing has already been quite successful. Further, the
Workshops have received such positive evaluations from participants that we
believe many faculty will continue to attend.
·
The curing of our
“Must”-itis. The Board also undertook a complete overhauling of the wording
for the Procedures, softening the language to make it more collegial. During most of the pilot, the procedures
were phrased as a series of “You must” statements in an attempt to
make clear what elements seemed key to meeting our charge to improve the consistency among
L-courses. Nonetheless, T the changes to the final recommended version in appendix K (page
86) more accurately represents the Board’s relationship with faculty.
· Flexibility in helping departments resolve scheduling problems. The Board also added language to the procedures to make clear to departments that, should they encounter unexpected scheduling problems, the Board would work with them to make sure that L-courses would not have to be canceled. This flexibility will be especially useful in ensuring that students who planned their schedules in advance would still be able to complete their degrees on time.
As mentioned above, workshops have
evolved as the principale, and
most successful,
means of meeting the UCF criterion for supporting faculty. As such, the Board recommends that both two-day
and mini-workshops continue to be a regular part of the program. However, the Board also recognizes that,
once again, time has been a factor for many instructors who have been
interested in attending, but whose August and January schedules did not permit
them to attend. Therefore, the Board
suggests trying
additional
formats to supplement the current workshops. Below are details on how such
workshops shcould be
designed and run.
·
Pre-semester
workshops. The prototype for the
pre-semester workshop was conducted in October 1999, a one-day workshop
co-facilitated by the Interim Director and two recognized experts in the WAC
field. Those in attendance agreed that
the material needed two days to be discussed adequately. The Board experimented with a third day
during the January 2001 workshop, with poor mixed
results. Thus, the Board recommends the
workshops remain two days in length, take place in January and August each
year, and be co-facilitated by both the director of the program and an outside
expert in the field, recommended by the director and approved by the Board. The
Board is reluctant to use this report to recommend a specific agenda or topics
for the workshop, preferring to allow the workshop to change as the needs of
faculty evolve.
· Mini-workshops. The Board also recommends that mini-workshops of one- to two-hours be offered at least three times each semester, more if the Board and the director agree on the need. The mini-workshops conducted over the last three semesters have received very positive evaluations from participants, though they have been uneven in the number of participants, ranging between 2 and 20. Throughout the three semesters, time and scheduling have again proved to be difficult: it is rare that the interim director does not receive a half-dozen e-mails after mini-workshops are announced, from faculty who have a conflict and want to attend but cannot. The Board will continue to experiment with days and times for these workshops, but also recognizes that it is unrealistic to think that they will operate without scheduling conflicts. The Board does agree, however, that the workshops should remain one to two hours long; should focus on topics suggested by faculty; and should attempt to involve Southern faculty from across the disciplines as guest speakers, recognizing both the faculty’s expertise in the area and their desire to continue conversations about teaching and learning.
·
Week-long summer
workshop. As a way of expanding
opportunities for faculty who may be interested in attending workshops, but who
may have time conflicts, the Board will proposes the
consideration of a week-long summer
workshop, similar in some ways to Southern’s own SummerTech, and modeled after
a similar program at the University of Nebraska-Kearney. In this format,
faculty will spend an intense morning discussing a topic relevant to L-course
instruction (such as assignment design or creating grading rubrics), and then
spend the afternoon working on a syllabus and proposal for an L-course in consultation
with members of the SWP staff and the Writing Board. The workshop would be especially helpful for
faculty who have never taught an L-course, and would have as its primary goal the completion of a proposal by week’s end.
·
Biweekly
workshops during the semester.
Finally, the Board is considering yet another format, one that would
offer opportunities to those faculty members who couldn’t attend workshops
during breaks. In this format, employed at the University of Louisville and
other universities, faculty do not attend a two-day workshop totaling 12 hours,
but instead meet periodically throughout the semester for a total of 12
hours. At Louisville, for example,
participants meet every other Friday for a total of six 2-hour sessions. The same Similar
material is covered over that time as would be covered in a two-day workshop,
allowing faculty to have the collegial benefits of the workshops while meeting
the needs of their schedules. Ensuring continuity of attendance – and therefore
continuity of topics and discussions – would be important to
the success of this model.
The Board recognizes that either or both of the additional workshop formats could prove unsuccessful. However, given the success of the workshop formats already in place, and given the desire of the Board to expand opportunities so that more faculty can enjoy the workshops, it seems worth the attempt to offer expanded opportunities.
The Board also wants to stress that the director of the program, in consultation with the Board, should ultimately have final say as to workshop content.
The Board, with the support of the
Vice President for Academic Affairs, has had the enrollment cap for all
L-courses lowered from 25 to 20 23 and, for courses approved by the Board, to
20. The Board recommends further
reducing that those caps to 21 and 18 and will negotiate with the Vice President for
these new caps. As part of preparing for these negotiations, the
Board is studying the overall
enrollment and staffing implications and the costs of these lower caps. The study will
also examine whether giving additional load credit for teaching
L-courses is feasible, or whether the chief objectives of this feature of the
original Proposal for the Pilot can better be met by significantly reduced
enrollment caps.
Obviously, a lower cap means that L-course instructors can devote more time to each individual student (another theme of the Focus Groups report). The Board, once again, submits this proposal in recognition of the time commitment that goes into teaching an L-course.
[Is this
accurate?]
Appendix N, page 92, presents the Board’s recommendations for L-credit for Independent Studies.
The Board debated for some time before coming to agreement on these guidelines. On the one hand, the Board felt that independent studies should meet the same requirements as other L-courses, in line with the UCF’s charge that L-courses have a “consistent character.” On the other hand, the Board also recognizes that, given the way Independent Studies are often proposed, there would be the potential for “unnecessary bureaucracy.” And so, the Board has recommended a streamlined process that allows for some oversight, but still allows freedom for instructor and student to create and evaluate a project that meets their needs.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs has agreed to these procedures and discussed them with the Deans of each School; they were scheduled to take effect in the Fall 2001 semester.
As mentioned in Part II above, the Board has created and approved a budget for the full 2001-2002 year, and has received a commitment from the administration to continue to fund the program thereafter. Please see Appendix O, page 94, for budget information.
In
continuing with current policy, To continue
encouraging the development and re-approval of L-courses, the Board recommends has negotiated with the Vice President of Academic Affairs that
instructors who propose a course during
the 2001-2002 year only will be given 1/3 overload credit, in
recognition of the time that needs to be put into developing such a proposal.
[Will this expire
after the 2001-2002 year? Might be a tough sell to give everyone who proposes
an L course 1/3 credit from here on….]
As with many
most elements
of this proposal, the Board debated for some time about how to recommend the
reviewing of pre-existing L-courses.
The Board had no disagreement about whether or
not the
importance of such courses’ should going through a review process: Given the UCF’s
“consistency” charge to the Board, it seems necessary that all L-courses, old
and new, be considered through the same process. The Board also agrees believes that this entire process should
take place over several years, partly so as to not overburden slow the
Board’s
process of examining courses, but, more importantly, to allow faculty
adequate time to prepare their proposals.
What the The Board could not, however,
agree on was the mechanism and the
schedule for that process. The Board
agreed that it would be best to let the UCF decide on
the order for how
existing L-courses to would be
reviewed. As a more representative
body, the UCF will be able to make a fair decision.
The Board does, however, offer some suggestions for possible processes:
· The UCF may use the current schedule of department self-evaluations. The departments scheduled for self-evaluation would also submit proposals for L-courses during the semester their report is due. Having a department’s proposals due during the same semester would allow the
Writing Board and SWP staff to concentrate its efforts, providing proposal workshops and other support tailored to the needs of individual departments, if requested.
· The UCF may use the current schedule of departmental self-evaluations, but expect departments to submit proposals during the year after their self-evaluation reports are due. This option would have the same advantages as the option above, with the additional advantages of (1) not overburdening faculty already involved in the self-evaluation process, and (2) allowing L-course proposals to be shaped according to the department’s needs, as identified by the self-evaluation.
·
· A third option might be to allow individual
departments to determine when they would submit L-course proposals. The UCF would establish a maximum time
period (say, three or four years), after which time any non-re-approved L’s
would no longer be offered.
· The UCF may, of course, consider other possibilities as well.
The Board recognizes that writing an L-course proposal does present a time demand on faculty. However, faculty who have submitted proposals for courses they have previously taught as L’s have reported that they spent, on average, between one and two hours preparing the proposal. The Board feels that the two hour time commitment is reasonable, especially considering the UCF’s charge for consistency in L-courses.
The Board recommends that the nomenclature for writing-intensive courses be changed from “L” (“Literacy”) to “W” (“Writing-intensive”).
This recommendation is presented for two reasons:
First, “literacy” does not to fully capture the nature of the courses. Literacy, in its current usage, implies both reading and writing, and while reading is an important part of any college course, and goes hand-in-hand with writing, students are not graded separately on their reading ability. In addition, “literacy” connotes a set of basic skills that seem far below the kinds of rich, critical writing that the Board has seen assigned by L-course faculty during the pilot.
Finally, “W” is more in line with
national mainstream. Few, if any, programs refer to their courses as “literacy”
courses. The “W” designation would be more widely recognized by other schools
that students might transfer to, and by graduate schools who might look more
favorablye upon a student with so much writing
experience.
There was some concern that registration software might not be able to handle the “W” designation, since it is used to designate something else on student transcripts. However, the Board has been assured that such a designation would be possible.
J. Staffing levels and duties
In order to carry out the duties of the SWP, including approval of courses and designing and implementing support for L-course faculty, a number of personnel will be
required, including members of the Writing Board and an SWP staff. Below are the Board’s recommendations for staffing the program:
The Writing Board was established by
the UCF as an independent committee to establish policy and procedures for L-courses and to oversee the approval of
L-course proposals. The Writing Board acts autonomously within these
areas, unless proposing a major change in the program, which must be approved by UCF.
The Writing Board currently
is made up consists of nine members, three from each of
three schools or school groupings (School of Arts and Sciences; School of Education
and School of
Health and Human Services; and School of Business and School of Communication,
Information, and Library Sciences), plus several other faculty members who
serve as ex officio non-voting members:
a representative of the UCF; the coordinator of composition; and the director
of the writing center. The appointed members are appointed jointly by the UCF
and the VP of Academic Affairs, and serve staggered 3-year terms. The Board
recommends that this structure remain. ,
but that the selection of appointed faculty be changed to provide more faculty
control of the process. Open seats will
be filled by appointment by UWIC, which will advertise the openings and select
a candidate from those who apply. The
distribution of positions from among the schools will remain the same.
The Board also
recommends that
there be a general understanding that ordinarily faculty will be
limited to two consecutive
three-year terms, so that rotation among faculty is assured.
Members of the Board will serve on committees and subcommittees of the Board, as determined by its members.
[More duties for Board?]
2. Chair
of Writing Board
The Chair of the Writing Board will
be elected annually from among the nine regular faculty membership of the Board. In addition to serving on the
Board, the chair will also perform the following duties:
The SWP director will be a full-time faculty member, ideally with training and/or experience in writing-across-the-curriculum program administration and/or its teaching. The director will receive 6 - 9 credits of reassigned time per semester. The director is not a voting member of the Writing Board, but does contribute his or her expertise during relevant discussions. The director performs the following duties:
4. Course
Development Coordinator
The Course Development Coordinator will be a full-time faculty member, ideally with training and/or experience in writing-across-the-curriculum program administration and/or teaching. The CDC will receive 3 credits of reassigned time per semester. The CDC is not a voting member of the Writing Board, but does contribute his or her expertise during relevant discussions. The CDC performs the following duties:
5. Tutors
The Board recommends that two tutors be hired each semester to support
L-course faculty and students. Tutors are to be housed in the university
writing center until space and demand require them to
move additional space and program support is obtained
as the University building program moves on to Phase Two. Tutors work 10
hours per week, meeting individually with students. They are also available to meet with faculty to discuss writing
issues, and to visit classrooms to assist L-course faculty in teaching writing.
The Board also recognizes that the qualifications, number, and duties of tutors remain flexible, determined annually by the director, in accordance with the needs of L-course faculty and students.
The Board recommends that, upon approval of its proposal, a national search for a new director take place. The Board recommends that the following parameters be considered:
The Board asserts its commitment to ongoing assessment of its policies and procedures. Of particular interest will be to ensure that the program is providing adequate support for faculty, and that it is sticking to procedural simplicity. The Board was pleased with the results of the focus groups it conducted in the spring 2001 semester, and has planned to continue such groups on an annual or biennial basis.
The Board is actively considering its relationship to academic departments in an effort to ensure that its policies respect the needs of individual disciplines. Being considered are recommendations to encourage students to take L-courses within their majors; strategies to encourage each department to offer a writing-intensive capstone course; and perhaps turning over some of the approval process.
to the departments.
The
Board would like to thank the UCF for the opportunity to consider changes to
the way L-courses are proposed, taught, and overseen. We believe that recommendations presented in this report will
serve the needs of Southern faculty and students by ensuring a more consistent
character across L-courses; supporting faculty and students in their efforts to
improve writing ability; and doing so without unnecessary bureaucracy.
The
Board would also like to thank the many, many members of the Southern community
who offered their thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms over the past three
years.
The Board
would like to thank the UCF for the opportunity to consider changes to the way
L-courses are proposed, taught, and overseen.
We believe that recommendations presented in this report will serve the
needs of Southern faculty and students by ensuring a more consistent character
across L-courses; supporting faculty and students in their efforts to improve
writing ability; and doing so without unnecessary bureaucracy.
The Board
would also like to thank the many, many members of the Southern community who
offered their thoughts, suggestions, and criticisms over the past three years.
Fulwiler, Toby and Art Young, editors. Programs that Work : Models and Methods for Writing Across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH : Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1990.
Herrington, Anne
and Charles Moran, editors. Writing,
Teaching, and Learning in the Disciplines.
New York : Modern Language Association of America, 1992.
Magnetto, Joyce Neff and Barbara R. Stout. “Faculty Workshops.” Writing Across the Curriculum: A Guide to Developing Programs. Edited by Susan H. McLeod and Margot Soven. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1992. 23-34.
Williams, James D. Preparing to Teach Writing. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1989.
Yancey, Kathleen Blake and Brian Huot, editors. Assessing Writing Across the Curriculum: Diverse Approaches and Practices. Greenwich, Conn. : Ablex Pub. Corp., 1997.
Young, Art. “The Wonder of
Writing Across the Curriculum.” Language and Learning Across the Disciplines
1 (1994): 58-72.
Appendix A:
1983 Guidelines for Teaching L-courses
(As published in Faculty Handbook, “Academic Policies and Procedures” section APP496 page 3.6)
_____________________________________________________________________
L-Courses Requirement. To ensure that all students continue to strengthen their ability in written language, they are required to select and pass a minimum of three L-courses. These courses are taken only after the student has passed English 100. L-courses are specifically designated and are offered in various departments as electives, part of major programs, and as options to fulfill all-University requirements. Students who transfer between 60 and 90 credits must pass two L-courses, while students who transfer more than 90 credits must pass one L-course.
The following requirements were developed by the Undergraduate Curriculum and Instruction Committee (UCIC) to implement the faculty referendum on L-courses approved spring semester 1982.
L-courses shall include several writing requirements with student producing a minimum of twenty-five pages of material. A page is about 250 words. The number and length of the assignments will be determined by the nature of the subject matter and the course level. Assignments must be presented as an integral part of the course.
Students will be informed that clarity of thought, coherence in organization, correctness in grammar, punctuation, and spelling will be considered in determining the grade for the paper. Students will be required to rewrite poorly written papers.
The papers should be more than book reports or collections of quotations from various sources, and should require original critical thinking on the part of the student.
The instructor of an L-course or section is expected to correct and comment on the following qualities in students’ writing:
Clarity of focus: The writer’s point of view or purpose is limited and clear.
Content: The thesis (point of view) is developed with good supporting details.
Diction, Idiom, Level of Usage: The writer chooses words and idioms that are appropriate to the topic and the audience.
Audience Awareness and Writer Awareness: The writer establishes his own identity and is sensitive to possible questions and objections from his reader.
Organization and Style: The ideas are organized in a logical, sequential order. The paragraphs are fully developed and unified with smooth transitions between paragraphs. Sentences are reasonably varied.
Mechanics: The writer exhibits good command of standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Appendix B:
Proposal for Pilot Program, 1997
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH
A CAMPUS WRITING PROGRAM
AT SCSU
We have had 10 years of generally successful experience with requiring L-courses for students at SCSU. Now we see an opportunity to increase the visibility, participation, rigor, and satisfaction of such courses.
Put generally, we want to set the L-course requirement at the center of our pedagogical strategies for the liberal education of our students. Unfortunately, many students now encounter L-courses as individual hurdles, placed randomly on the CPER landscape, over which they must jump. We want to create a curricular structure and educational environment in which writing can be encountered as a tool of discovery across the curriculum.
More specifically, therefore, we propose that SCSU transform its present vision of L-courses into a well-planned and well-supported Southern Writing Program (SWP). The UCF, representing the faculty in matters of curriculum, plays the central role in this transformation.
We propose that UCF create the Southern Writing Program with three major elements:
I. A Campus Writing Board to supervise L-courses;
II. Professional staff to support faculty and student participation in L-courses;
III. Rewards for successful faculty participation.
I
Campus Writing Board
A. The Academic Vice President, in consultation with UCF, will appoint a board of 12 faculty and three students, selected from successful teachers of writing-intensive courses and representing three basic faculty units (three faculty and one student from each of the following units:
1. School of Arts and Sciences
2. School of Education and School of Professional Studies
3. School of Business and School of Communication, Information,
and Library Science
The Chair of the Campus Writing Board will be elected by the board from among the nine faculty members.
B. The Board will also include as ex officio non-voting members the English Department’s Coordinator of Composition, the Director of the Writing Center, and a member of the UCF University-Wide Impact Committee.
C. The Board, in consultation with the UCF and the Academic Vice President, will supervise L-courses by implementing policies developed by the appropriate faculty bodies.
D. The Campus Writing Board will approve L-course proposals at each offering.
E. The Campus Writing Board will oversee the activities of the SWP staff.
II
Professional Staff
A. There will be a full-time Director of the Writing Program.
1. The Director will have faculty rank on a tenure-track appointment.
2. The Director will conduct bi-annual workshops for present and potential L-course faculty; attendance at one workshop annually will be required for all L-course faculty.
3. The Director will consult with L-course faculty at least twice each semester during an L-course.
4. The Director will conduct structured interviews with all faculty at the conclusion of each L-course.
5. The Director will gather student evaluations, using methods developed specifically for this purpose, after each L-course.
6. The Director will supervise workshop or tutoring activities for students during the semester.
B. There will be three half-time writing consultants available during the semester.
1. These consultants will be at least graduate students in an academic field related to their assigned responsibilities.
2. They will also have demonstrated skill at writing in their fields, and will have participated in training sessions conducted by the Director.
3. Each consultant will be available to assist faculty during the semester.
4. Each consultant will tutor students enrolled in L-courses in one division.
C. There will be at least half-time secretarial support for the SWP.
III
Rewards for Faculty Participation
A. Each faculty member who participates in an L-course workshop (II. A. 2 above) will receive an honorarium of $100.
B. Faculty who teach L-courses will have the assistance of a quarter-time Teaching Assistant for every 20 students after the first 20, if methods for offering L-courses effectively to larger class sections can be developed.
C. Faculty who teach L-courses successfully will have this service to the University noted appropriately during Promotion & Tenure or Professional Assessment proceeding.
D. Faculty who have successfully taught L-courses three times will receive three overload credits.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
If the UCF votes this semester to authorize a pilot version of the Southern Writing Program for writing-intensive courses, we anticipate proceeding on approximately the following schedule:
1. During the remainder of the Fall Semester, and during the inter-session, we will identify faculty members and students who have the experience and commitment to serve as members of the Board for the pilot program.
We will also prepare preliminary estimates of how many tutors we may need by analyzing enrollment figures for the last ten years of writing-intensive courses and consulting with other schools about their experiences.
2. At the beginning of the spring semester we will hold formal consultations with the designated representative(s) of the UCF, and make the appointments of faculty and student Board members.
3. During the first two months of the Spring semester the Board will establish procedures, timetables, and appropriate forms.
We will also begin to develop a job-description and qualifications for an interim Director and for one or more tutors.
We will be in contact with the
University-wide Impact Committee during both these tasks through the committee
representative on the Writing Board. When we have developed the documents we
intend to use during this first test phase, we will submit them to the entire Committee
for discussion.
Both of these tasks will be supported by assistance from the Quality Management Institute staff, process and budget; we expect to meet with one or more faculty who supervise writing programs at other universities.
We will also notify faculty of Arts & Sciences that proposals for new Writing-Intensive courses will be considered by the Board during the last month of the Spring semester and the first month of the Fall semester: these will be courses to be taught in the following Spring semester (2000).
Immediately following the Spring semester, we will hold the first workshop on managing writing-intensive courses; we expect to invite an experienced presenter from another school. We will invite all interested SCSU faculty members to attend, both experienced and prospective teachers of writing-intensive courses. The $100 honorarium will be paid.
We will submit a report on this workshop to the UCF at the beginning of the following (Fall 1999) semester.
4. Based on our experiences with the process thus far, and with the oversight of the UCF, we will begin during the Fall semester (1999) to undertake the review and re-authorization of existing Writing-Intensive courses in Arts and Sciences.
5. During the Spring semester (2000) the Board will examine the policies and procedures developed thus far, and, in consultation with the UCF and Academic Vice-President, will make changes as appropriate. The Quality Management Institute will be asked to provide support for this process.
A special priority will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the support given to faculty and students involved with writing-intensive courses.
6. During the Fall (2000) and Spring (2001) semesters the Board will administer the program as developed thus far, monitoring all aspects for strengths and weaknesses.
If the program has developed successfully, the Board may return to the UCF for authorization to extend the pilot program to writing-intensive courses in other schools of the university.
7. During the first month of the following semester (Fall 2001) the Board will submit a formal report on the pilot program to the UCF. This report will include the Board’s recommendations for how to supervise Writing Intensive courses across the curriculum of the university.
Appendix C:
Southern Writing Program Pilot Charter, 1997
SCSU WRITING PROGRAM
PILOT PROGRAM CHARTER
1. Name of Project and Sponsors
SCSU Writing Program (SWP)
Sponsors: Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF), in partnership with the Vice
President for Academic Affairs
2. Organizational Goals or Objectives to be Addressed
Improved administration and improved outcomes of existing L-course policy to
develop student writing skills.
3. Locational Boundaries of the process (what departments and offices are affected)
a. Academic Affairs
b. departments in School of Arts and Sciences
c. UCF
4. Improvement Targets and Measures
a. review features of proposed pilot program (developed by Mark Heidmann) to
determine their feasibility at SCSU
b. develop a procedure and measures for assessing the effectiveness of a pilot
program
c. implement the pilot program in phases, as outlined in the Heidmann proposal
d. assess the pilot efforts and make desired adjustments in the plan
e. include the following factors in the assessment:
1. does the project foster more consistent character and quality of the L
courses?
2. does the project provide more effective support and guidance to
instructors in the L courses?
3. does the project improve student writing?
4. does the project support the different qualities of good writing practice in different disciplines?
5. does the structure of the project avoid unnecessary bureaucracy?
6.does the project operate at a reasonable cost which the administration will be prepared to support over time, and which does not compromise other academic needs?
f. report to the sponsors (UCF, VP) each semester on the progress of the project,
including recommendations for implementation of changes beyond the pilot project
5. Resources
a. the SWP pilot project team will be composed of members as stipulated in sections I.A and I.B. of the proposal and the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Members will be selected by the Academic VP in consultation with the UCF.
b. facilitation by the Quality Management Institute will be provided by the administration to the extent requested by the sponsoring parties and the pilot program Writing Board.
c. the Academic VP will provide operational funding and staff resources to conduct the pilot operation, as proposed, in the amount not to exceed $50,000 as part of SCSU's strategic plan objective 1.1.
d. the University Wide Impact Committee of the UCF will serve as the point of contact for the pilot program team whenever they want or need to consult.
6. Constraints
Regular reports (once each semester) on progress, problems and proposed solutions in pilot project to UCF and the Academic VP.
The pilot program will not be expanded or made permanent until it is
a. reviewed by all sponsoring parties
b. approved by all appropriate faculty bodies and administrative offices authorized to change university-wide curriculum.
7. Time Frame
Project will follow the schedule in Heidmann proposal.
8. Strategies
Committee process, supplemented by quality planning methodology, as desired by
the Writing Project pilot project team.
Inclusion of the project in SCSU's annual spending plans and budgets for the
period of the pilot project.
Sponsors' Signatures:
UCF (Chair) ________________________
VP for Academic Affairs ________________________
Appendix D:
Writing Board Survey of
L-course Instructors, Fall 1999
SOUTHERN WRITING BOARD
SURVEY OF L-COURSE INSTRUCTORS—1999 CLASSES
1. What is your general experience teaching L-courses?
2. Would you teach L’s in the future? Why or why not?
3. What do you find difficult about teaching an L-course?
4. What have you found rewarding about teaching L-courses?
5. When you teach L’s, how do revisions fit in, if at all?
Appendix E:
Workshop Evaluation Reports,
Fall 1999-Fall 2001
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty
Writing-Intensive Workshop
October 8, 1999
Co-Facilitators
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, Southern Writing Program
Martha Townsend, University of Missouri
Martha Patton, University of Missouri
Participants
David Levine, Art History
Camille Serchuk, Art History
Jason Stenzel, Chemistry
Polly Beals, History
Dana Sonnenschein, English
Michael Ryan, Sociology
Jim Dolan, Physics
Troy Paddock, History
Writing Board members
Mark Heidmann, English
Carina Vocisano, Psychology
Beth Taylor, Special Education
Bernadette Madara, Nursing
Tony Maltese, Social Work
Debora Savage, Economics
Frank Harris, Journalism
Sue Ellen Holbrook, English
Tom Ferrucci, English
Megan Macomber, English
Mike Shea, English
Courtney McManus, student
Jeff Sousa, student
Erica Gordon, student
Participants represented 12 departments from 5 different schools within SCSU
Evaluation
SCSU Faculty Writing-Intensive Workshop
October 8, 1999
Participants responded to questions 1 through 20 by circling the appropriate number, as described below:
NA (0)= Not applicable or don't know. The statement doesn't apply to the workshop, or you simply aren't able to give a knowledgeable response.
SA (4)= Strongly Agree. You strongly agree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
A (3)= Agree. You agree more than you disagree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
D (2)= Disagree. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
SD (1)= Strongly Disagree. You strongly disagree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
Total evaluations: 19
NA SA or A SD or D
1. The workshop's objectives were clear. 3 15 1
Additional
comment: I remember hearing about the
objectives, but a review as part of the workshop would have been helpful.
2. It was easy to remain attentive 0 18 1
Additional comment: Yes, but I
flagged at the end of the day
Additional comment: A short break in the afternoon is absolutely necessary.
3. a) The content of the workshop was worthwhile 0 18 1
b b) The content of the handouts is worthwhile 0 18 1
c c) Bean's Engaging Ideas is worthwhile 5 13 0
Additional
comment for (a): Somewhat uneven, not in
quality, but in relevance to particular disciplines.
Additional comment for (b): All overheads should be made into handouts.
4. I would have preferred other methods of presentation 1 2 16
5. The presenters did not synthesize, integrate,
or summarize effectively 1 1 17
6. Some things were not explained very well. 1 1 17
Additional
comment: A bit short on time on some parts (peer
review)
Additional
comment: Explained well, but little time to
reflect
7. The workshop encouraged developed new viewpoints
and appreciations. 1 16 2
8. The workshop provided opportunities to apply learned
experiences to demonstrate understanding 2 16 1
9. My interest in this topic has been stimulated
as a result of this workshop 0 19 0
Additional comment: Re-stimulated.
10. The information presented seemed timely
and up-to-date. 1 18 0
11. The pace at which the presenters covered the material
was just about right. 1 11 7
Additional comment: too quick sometimes
12. Time was wasted by the presenters by dwelling on
insignificant, irrelevant material. 0 3 16
13. The workshop raised challenging questions or problems
for discussion. 0 19 0
14. During the workshop, I felt free to ask questions
or present my opinion. 0 19 0
15. The scope of the workshop was too limited;
not enough material was presented. 0 17 2
Additional comment: Different levels of expertise, engagement, I-know-it-allness in this group.
16. I will be able to use some of the ideas from the workshop
in teaching my course(s). 2 17 0
Additional comment: But then I already do.
17. The workshop acknowledged the connections
between writing, reading, and thinking. 0 14 5
Additional comment: Didn't make reading/writing link strongly enough.
Additional comment: But needs even more on thinking and reading
18. The workshop offered practical advice
about responding to student writing. 0 16 3
Additional comment: But need a practicum of some longer duration to be
helpful.
19. The workshop offered practical advice
about grading student writing. 0 15 4
Additional
comment: But need a practicum of some longer
duration to be helpful.
20. I would advise colleagues to take future workshops. 0 19 0
21. If I were to grade this workshop on a scale from 1 to 100 points, I would assign it _____ points as an overall grade.
Average of all who responded: 86.88
Number grading 90-99: 9
Number grading 80-89: 6
Number grading 70-79:
1
Number grading 60-69: 1
Number grading below 60: 0
Number who did not respond: 2
22. How do you think the workshop will affect your teaching?
·
The workshop has had an
impact on my teaching, but it is too early to explain exactly how I will change
my teaching.
·
I will adopt some of the
Bean suggestions.
·
I will use some of these
ideas to refine assignments (and create them).
·
I think the workshop
will help me to develop better writing assignments, grade these assignments
more quickly and effectively, and improve student writing.
·
Provided additional
ideas to supplement Bean's book.
·
I will talk to
colleagues more about specific policies.
·
I will revise current
writing assignments -- more problem oriented, and develop rubrics for more
assignments. I will change my comments on papers.
·
Through the awareness
that faculty in various disciplines are as strongly involved with student
writing. My focus in composition
classes will often refer to the expectations of these other faculty.
·
I will give better
assignments, save time when grading, and integrate papers better with course.
·
Restructure assignments.
Will consider teaching an L-course for the first time.
·
This particular workshop
seemed focused on identification and characterization of problems, without
offering the sort of structure and examples that could be completed in my courses. It will have an impact in the quality of my
reflection and introspection (which is good) and probably result in change
through time and increased colleague contact.
·
It will help me offer
better comments to students on their papers.
·
It gives me confidence
in my various approaches.
·
It has stimulated my
thinking of creative ways to present writing assignments.
·
This workshop has
affirmed all of my practices in writing-intensive courses. It has encouraged me to use them in majors'
courses as well as composition and sophomore literature.
·
Will help me to improve
my writing assignments and evaluation of papers.
23. This workshop was intended to serve as a model or prototype for future SCSU workshops. What might have been included that wasn't (or) what should be left out next time around?
·
Discussion on grading
and peer reviews would help. Most help
would have been some discussion of how one balances the need to cover a certain
amount of material and teach writing.
·
A two day workshop would
be more beneficial. Having more time to
focus on each topic would be beneficial.
There was too much to do in a short period of time. Having actual examples of graded papers from
1 or 2 courses would [increase] the focus.
The examples should be A - C - F papers graded by the same person.
·
Samples of the rubrics
should be handed out.
·
More practice on
editing. More on writing in technical
courses.
·
Hand-outs of all
overhead presentations. More time
devoted to presentation of the facilitator's ideas. More focus on issues/problems with applying the model to
L-courses at SCSU.
·
More interaction within
small groups; less lecture-type presentation.
·
Perhaps drop WI
scenarios or go directly to a large group problem solving/discussion. This would leave more time for peer
review/conferencing piece.
·
Will need to be shorter
for some of our faculty -- not sure how.
·
Difficult to know at
this point. Probably plenty
given for one day, before teaching an L-course. Follow-up workshops, to
be determined.
·
Never shrink 20 hours of
material into six. All of the material
deserved a lot more time for interaction in both small group and large
group exercises. Choose some part and
do it appropriately and avoid overviews in this format.
·
Issues with students who
have more deficits in terms of grammar, ESL, etc
·
Everything was
worthwhile
·
Move groups around --
don't depend on table partners alone.
Keep allowing people to put their observations in their own words, even
if it's repetitive.
·
Hard to answer. For me, this was a beginning/introduction
and was useful for instructors just beginning to teach L courses.
·
I like all the elements
or sections and the combination of lecture and small group work.
·
Please get back to me on
this one.
24. What should SCSU do now to follow through with further assistance for you?
·
It is too early for me
to comment.
·
Hold 1 hour workshop on
each topic. Hold different levels of
workshops for faculty who already teach L courses, English/Composition faculty,
and faculty who have never taught an L course.
·
Make people available to
critique the L instructor's approach.
·
List of interesting web
sites? Links to others in our
disciplines?
·
Lower maximum class size
to 20. Lower the minimum page
requirement in the guidelines to 20 instead of 25.
·
Perhaps have further
discussion of ideas and challenges shared by other faculty.
·
Sponsor interactive
colloquia/workshops dealing with teaching writing.
·
Focused topic meetings
would be useful.
·
Allot sufficient funds
for and attention to writing support programs.
·
Keep entire faculty
aware of plans, Writing Board membership, and actions taken. Do NOT depend on word of mouth to do this!!!
·
Handouts on 5 minute
workshops, modeling, etc. Personal copy
of Bean.
·
Provide this sort of
format for exchange. Provide technical
writing experts. Create definite physical space, with books and manuals, for
peer-review sessions.
·
Continue dialogue about
writing and teaching strategies.
·
Workshops that focus on
evaluation of courses/content.
·
I strongly endorse the
Writing Board project.
·
Possibly allow certain L
courses to be awarded 4 hours credit for students and instructors. Beef up Writing Center with people
experienced in my discipline.
25. Any other comments you care to add?
·
The Martys were very
good.
·
The room was too hot,
the pace was too fast. The
"average" rating for [my] evaluation is not meant to be a reflection
on the "Martys" -- just the pace of the workshop. I really did learn much important
information. Thank you.
·
Thanks! You worked hard,
and it showed.
·
Both Martys were
informed and congenial. Room was way too warm.
I needed a couple more breaks --
I felt like I was doing E.S.T.
·
Very worthwhile. I learned techniques that I can use
immediately and encountered ideas that I will try to work through over time.
·
Good choice of
presenters.
·
Excellent.
·
I'll happily attend
other sessions. I find the
conversations very stimulating and encourage an academic environment at
SCSU. I thought entirely too much time
was devoted to areas that this audience already knew to the sacrifice of the
kinds of feedback that I want.
·
As a student, I
discovered that the faculty at SCSU is committed to helping students write
better and with more purpose.
·
Great conversation about
writing! I've never heard such a
productive discussion of writing on this campus in the 15 years I've been here.
·
A lot of material to
absorb. A more narrow focus would be
useful.
·
Compressing the workshop
into one day forced (?) one of the presenters to cut off or not apparently
attend to our ideas so that she could pop up transparencies with predetermined
lists on them. Avoid this.
Evaluation Report
SCSU faculty
Writing-Intensive Workshop
January 18 & 19, 2000
Workshop Leaders:
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, Southern Writing Program
Martha Townsend, University of Missouri
Ben Schwarz, University of Missouri
Attendees
Jon Bloch, Sociology/Anthropology
C.B. Coleman, Theater
Kay Corbett, Education
Maria Diamantis, Education
Nancy Disbrow, Library Science/Info. Technology
Jerry Dunklee, Journalism
Peggy Gallup, Public Health
Patty Kahlbaugh, Psychology
Tom Malchodi, SCSU Writing Center
Virginia Metaxas, History
Nancy Noell, SWP Writing Center
Liz Owen, Art History
Christine Petto, History
Lisa Rebeschi, Nursing
Kathleen Skoczen, Sociology/Anthropology
Cindy Stretch, English
Anne Szeligowski, SWP Writing Center
Beth Taylor, Special Education
Chuck Weider, Art History
Jodi Williams, Library Science
Participants represented 12 departments from 4 different schools within SCSU
Faculty Panel
Troy Paddock, History
Liz Owen, Art History
Evaluation Report
SCSU faculty Writing-Intensive Workshop
January 18 & 19, 2000
Participants responded to questions 1 through 19 by circling the appropriate letter(s), as described below:
NA = Not applicable or don't know. The statement doesn't apply to the workshop, or you simply aren't able to give a knowledgeable response.
SA = Strongly Agree. You strongly agree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
A = Agree. You agree more than you disagree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
D = Disagree. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
SD = Strongly Disagree. You strongly disagree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
Total evaluations: 20 (though one did not complete questions 15-25)
NA SA or A SD or D
26. The workshop's objectives were clear. 0 20 0
27. It was easy to remain attentive 0 20 0
28. a) The content of the workshop was worthwhile 0 20 0
d b) The content of the handouts is worthwhile 0 20 0
e c) Bean's Engaging Ideas is worthwhile 2 18 1
Note: one evaluation marked
"c" as both SA and SD
Additional comment for (c):
Yes! [with SA circled]
Additional comment for (c):
Not carefully read
Additional comment for (c):
It really would help to get materials on the January 7th date, or
even earlier -- I know you're working on it….
Additional comment for (a),
(b), and (c): Absolutely!
29. I would have preferred other methods of presentation 0 3 17
30. The presenters did not synthesize, integrate,
or summarize effectively 0 2 18
31. Some things were not explained very well. 0 1 19
32. The workshop provided opportunities to apply learned
experiences to demonstrate understanding 2 16 2
Additional comment: Not enough time [with a D circled]
33. My interest in this topic has been stimulated
as a result of this workshop 0 19 1
Additional comment: Very
much so!
34. The workshop encouraged/developed new
viewpoints and appreciations. 0 19 1
35. The information presented seemed timely
and up-to-date. 0 20 0
36. The pace at which the presenters covered the material
was just about right. 0 17 3
Additional comment: We got bogged down, but that's our fault
37. Time was wasted by the presenters by dwelling on
insignificant, irrelevant material. 0 2 19
Note: One evaluation had
both "A" and "D" circled and included the comment "It
could have been more efficient"
Additional comment: I
enjoyed the tangents--helpful to see issues other professors are dealing with.
38. During the workshop, I felt free to ask questions
or present my opinion. 0 20 1
Note: One evaluation had
both "A" and "D" circled
39. The scope of the workshop was too limited;
not enough material was presented. 0 0 20
Additional comment:
Actually, I feel the opposite. I
dislike grading assignments that we lack context for--it seemed a useless
exercise and major waste of time.
40. I will be able to use some of the ideas from the
workshop in teaching my course(s). 0 19 0
Additional comment: Yes.
41. The workshop offered practical advice
about responding to student writing. 0 19 0
Additional comment: Could
have been more.
42. The workshop acknowledged the connections
between writing, reading, and thinking. 0 16 3
Additional comment: [Reading was] the missing link
Additional comment: [Reading was] not really brought up
Additional comment: [Reading was] not so much [discussed]
43. I would advise colleagues to take future workshops. 1 18 1
Note: One evaluation had
both "A" and "D" circled and included the comment
"Undecided"
Additional comment: It's
required [with "NA" circled]
44. The workshop raised challenging questions
or problems for discussion. 0 19 0
Additional comment: Yes
[with "challenging" underlined]
45. If I were to grade this workshop on a scale from 1 to 100 points, I would assign it _____ points as an overall grade.
Average of all who
responded: 91.87
Number grading 90-100: 17
Number grading 80-89: 0
Number grading 70-79: 2
Number grading 60-69: 0
Number grading below 60:
0
Number who did not respond: 1
46. How do you think the workshop will affect your teaching?
·
Provide
practical advice on teaching writing as well as re-orient my approach to
writing
·
The
workshop gave me excellent ideas for creating some exciting assignments and
"breathing life" into the term paper model.
·
It
will help me to better design assignments. It will help me to explain
assignments to students.
·
Immediate
effect on my revisions on courses; will apply some of this information to my
spring 2000 SCORE course, too.
·
I
will certainly revise writing assignments and give more careful feedback to
students.
·
Presentations
have stimulated my thinking further of how to develop student critical thinking
and writing
·
I
will further revise assignments. I will alter the way I comment on student
papers. I will develop rubrics for some
of my assignments. I believe I will
submit an L-course proposal (for the first time ever).
·
Improve
it. I am coming away with many new ideas for all of my courses.
·
It
gave me very good ideas but I think they may be presented in, e.g., short workshops
that don't take a chunk out of important prep time. The end of the
semester might be better.
·
Right
now my head is spinning….I thought I had a sound course proposal with various
assignments and writing guidelines. I just need to take a deep breath and not
revise everything right now.
·
In
reality, very little.
·
Direct
application to my instructional approach to course content, assignments, etc.
·
It
will affect the development of more problem-based assignments.
·
It
gave me an "excuse" to dedicate 2 days to thinking about my own
methods. I'm changing the way I sequence assignments and adding more and more
meaningful informal writing.
·
Commenting
on essays--more is not necessarily better.
·
I
would like to review the Bean text and then work in new approaches in my
teaching and writing to see what would work in my classes.
·
Refocus
some writing assignments. Re-evaluate
my methods of grading.
·
I
believe that the workshop will help me to incorporate and further develop
assignments in L-courses which I teach.
The examples provided and the discussion were great!
·
Rethink
and redesign assignments. Plus I'm going to incorporate some of the other
suggestions (peer review, short paragraphs, etc.) into the course.
47. This workshop was intended to serve as a model or prototype for future SCSU workshops. What might have been included that wasn't (or) what should be left out next time around?
·
I
would like to know about peer review--the practical applications and problems.
I like the mix of lectures and activities.
Please add times to agenda.
·
Asking
faculty, in groups, to create new assignments, not just bring old ones.
That means more time for processing during workshop.
·
I
liked the variety of presenters' backgrounds and their individual input.
·
Group
discussion of specific challenges faced by "L" course faculty along
with proposed solutions.
·
If
possible, more time for 5-minute workshops (e.g., run through one as would be
done in class)
·
Perhaps
more focus on specific projects developed by SCSU faculty. I would have loved
feedback on the specifics of what I do now and what I plan to do later.
·
I
don't know if you need to bring in outsiders. I think you should condense it to
one day.
·
It
would help to hear or see concrete examples our own faculty. For
example, as the semesters go by Troy could give us a copy of his 3rd
assignment and give us feedback on how it worked. We just need to get some of the "L" courses going the
"new" way and then we will have more to say.
·
It
could be done in an afternoon.
·
It
would have been helpful to eliminate some of the norming and evaluation
procedures. We got a little bogged down.
Otherwise -- great!!
·
We
should expect participants to actually read Bean so that presentations
could go beyond summary.
·
More
attention to how the Writing Center and tutors can be a valuable resource.
·
A
little more time given to evaluating L-assignments that exist. Take time to
rewrite existing L assignments, then critique them.
·
I
think that a little more context could be provided for the examples and the
papers given.
·
A
section on how to handle the "problem" student--perhaps this may
involve some coaching/suggestions from the L-course tutors (?). I also liked
the panel set-up--perhaps switching panels on day 2 to share ideas with other
profs.
48. During the course of the semester, we will be offering one- to two-hour "mini-workshops" on topics relevant to teaching L-courses. Are there particular courses you would like to see covered?
·
Maybe
peer review
·
New
and interesting assignments; what worked what didn't
·
Rubrics,
grading
·
5-minute
workshops; peer editing techniques, including worksheets for focused peer
review.
·
More
hands-on with particular assignments could be useful (both development and
giving feedback to)
·
Perhaps
a workshop on various styles -- MLA, APA, Chicago; perhaps a science prof.
might demonstrate how he/she uses "L" courses.
·
Two
hours is a long time--keep short. Keep
open to questions from participants.
·
Peer
reviews
·
Peer
review; teaching students to develop good "thesis statements"
·
I'd
like to present on the purpose and use of a Writing Center.
·
Have
someone from the tutoring staff give a sample presentation of what he or she
would do when invited to your classroom.
·
More
on feedback/constructive criticism/ grading (covered on day 2 of workshop)
49. What should SCSU do now to follow through with further assistance for you?
·
Maintain
funding for the Writing Board!
·
Keep
the Writing Board
·
Think
about ongoing conversations between instructors currently teaching L courses.
·
Provide
updates about SCSU Writing program activities via e-mail messages. Perhaps, tip of the month?
·
What
you have planned seems great. I will
want to develop my L course this semester for certification/evaluation.
·
Relieve
the paperwork.
·
It
sounds as if you already have it planned through: 2 workshops in Aug/Jan; mini
workshops; meetings with Bob; Writing Center
·
Unless
some unforeseen question or problem emerges, I can't think of anything. Once
the semester starts, it will be hard to have much time to delve into all the
issues in-depth, so I expect to work on my own, as with other courses.
·
Be
available for further questions -- perhaps an e-mail query?
·
Upgrade
the Writing Center
·
Continue
building student and faculty support structures: develop and expand Campus
Writing Center, for example; reduce class size to allow implementation of
workshop's suggestions.
·
Take
suggestions, questions, and comments from this and past workshops and use them
for discussion in future ones.
·
As
mentioned in the workshop, look into absorbing testing costs for students with
learning disabilities.
·
It
might be helpful for us to get some feedback from the other workshop
participants on what they adopted/altered from suggestions, what is working,
what isn't, or if anyone here at SCSU has built a better mousetrap.
50. Any other comments you care to add?
·
Thanks
a lot, folks -- good job!
·
Thanks
for the growth! This has been a workshop of confirming on my beliefs and making
me feel good about what I do.
·
This
was a well-designed workshop. The text
was very helpful and will be a great reference as I work on writing assignments
for my courses.
·
If
the Writing board has authority over L-courses & that authority is
construed as "faculty" control, maybe WB members should be elected,
not appointed.
·
I
learned more the second time around -- the 2-day format seems to work.
·
While
I realize that "L" courses have often been taught irresponsibly and
"lazily" over the years, I feel the degree of micromanagement now
being offered is too far in the other direction.
·
Thanks
for a revealing 2 days. I plan to
strongly encourage other faculty in my department to participate in future
writing workshops.
·
I'm
glad SCSU is paying attention to writing and to enriching our students'
experience (and mine).
·
Thanks.
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty
Writing-Intensive Workshop
August 28 & 29, 2000
Workshop Leaders:
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, Southern Writing Program
Martha Townsend, Director, Campus Writing Program, University of Missouri
Participants
Therese Bennett, Mathematics (Board member)
Cathy Berman, Library Science
Mary Brown, Library Science
Debby Carroll, Psychology
Kathy
Connors, Art
Charlie
Dellinger-Pate, Communication
Bob Eldridge, Economics & Finance
Jacque Ensign, Education
Jane Feng, Biology
Lynn Hidek, Library Science
Shirley Jackson, Sociology
Steven Judd, History
Marisa Kammerling, Library Science
Steve Larocco, English
Tony Maltese, Social Work (Board member)
Doris Marino, Exercise Science
Sandy Minor, Public Health
Sharon Misasi, Exercise Science
Jeff Mock, English
Wes O'Brien, Communication
Rob Page, Management
Paul Petrie, English
Jiongdong Pang, Chemistry
Kate Reynolds, Modern Language
Frank Tavares, Communication (Board member)
Barbara Worden, Social Work
Jin-Jin Yang, Exercise Science
Participants represented 17 departments from 5 different schools within
SCSU
Faculty Panel
Liz Owen, Art History
Troy Paddock, History
Cindy Stretch, English
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty Writing-Intensive Workshop
August 28 & 29, 2000
Participants responded to questions 1 through 16 by circling the appropriate letter(s), as described below:
NA = Not applicable or don't know. The statement doesn't apply to the workshop, or you simply aren't able to give a knowledgeable response.
SA = Strongly Agree. You strongly agree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
A = Agree. You agree more than you disagree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
D = Disagree. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
SD = Strongly Disagree. You strongly disagree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
Total evaluations: 26 [though one did not respond to 3c]
NA SA or A SD or D
51. The workshop's objectives were clear. 0 26 0
2. It was easy to remain attentive 0 26 0
Additional comment: First day [with A circled]
3. a) The content of the workshop was worthwhile 0 26 0
b) The content of the handouts was worthwhile 0 26 0
c) Bean's Engaging Ideas was worthwhile 0 25 0
Additional comment for (b): If not repeats of Bean [with A circled]
Additional comment for (b): Some missing [with A circled]
Additional comment for (c): *** [with SA circled]
Additional comment for (c): ! [with SA circled]
4. The presenters synthesized, integrated,
or summarized effectively 0 26 0
5. Some things were not explained very well. 1 2 23
6. The workshop provided opportunities to
apply information and ideas 1 25 0
Additional comment: Need more of this [with A circled]
7. My interest in this topic has been stimulated
as a result of this workshop 0 26 0
8. The workshop encouraged new viewpoints 0 26 0
9. The information presented seemed timely
and up-to-date. 2 24 0
10. The pace at which the presenters covered the material
was just about right. 0 24 2
Additional comment: 1st day, not 2nd [with A circled]
Additional comment: Could have used more time [with A circled]
11. Time was wasted by the presenters by dwelling on
insignificant, irrelevant material. 1 1 25
Additional comment: 1st day [with SD circled]
12. During the workshop, I felt free to ask questions
or present my opinion. 0 26 0
Additional comment: Too much at times [with SA circled]
13. The scope of the workshop was too limited;
not enough material was presented. 1 1 24
14. I will be able to use some of the ideas from the workshop
in teaching my course(s). 0 26 0
Additional comment: *** [with SA circled]
15. I would advise colleagues to take future workshops. 0 26 0
16. The workshop raised challenging questions or problems
for discussion 0 26 0
Note: One additional comment near the top of a page: “I’m answering most for 1st day as 2nd not as useful, organized for my needs. Needed less chat in Am and PM and more on evaluation, rubrics that few know how to do.”
17. If I were to grade this workshop on a scale from 1 to 100 points, I would assign it _____ points as an overall grade.
Average of all who
responded: 94.37
Number grading 90-100: 26
Number grading 80-89: 0
Number grading 70-79: 0
Number grading 60-69: 0
Number grading below 60:
0
Number
who did not respond: 0
Additional comment: [with a grade of 100] I did feel we could have used more time to discuss at times. I felt rushed--I enjoyed the discussions and the exchange of ideas.
Additional comment: [with a grade of 97] or I wouldn't actually grade it; rather, I'd have the presenters do some metawriting….
18. How do you think the workshop will affect your teaching?
· Second Time taking the workshop. Have utilized several ideas in my seminar.
· By incorporating more writing assignments in all courses. By revising how assignments are worded.
· In very many ways. (1) Assignments. (2) Grading. But an overall enthusiastic attitude toward teaching an L course.
· It will make me scrutinize all of my assignments, even those in non-L courses.
· It will help me change some of my courses into L courses, and to understand what an L course actually entails.
· I have gleaned many new ideas for creating better writing assignments. I plan to implement some of them (e.g. giving problem-based assignments) this coming semester.
· I will write more clear assignments. My grading process will be more helpful to my students. I will write problem-based assignments.
· I will certainly take more care and interest (yes, interest!) in planning and designing my course assignments.
· (1) I will change the nature of my assignments--make them more clear and concise. (2) Will use more informal writing. (3) Will change my way of commenting on student papers.
· I will present students with more info and detailed assignments. I will improve my grading. I will structure classes and papers differently.
· I am planning on adding a few new ideas to my class assignments. More specific in instructions and grading criteria.
· Enhance my course assignment clear and focus. Provide more ways to conduct writing assignments in order to enhance students' learning and writing skills.
· I will become much more specific in my critical thinking assignments and assessment. I will use Bean as a reference to improve the course syllabus and assignments.
· Clearer assignments and rubrics. More process.
· New ideas for getting my students to become more involved and better thinkers.
· I will be preparing assignments which will better connect with the course goals, will be more challenging and interesting for my students.
· It will improve my way of grading.
· I can use more problem-based assignments to enforce the learning of complex subject matter. I will assign more frequent writing assignments than just one long term paper.
· Stimulate a more thoughtful and purpose-oriented approach to creating and evaluating assignments.
· Immediate changes in how I write assignments--especially in giving criteria to students. Will make me focus more on what my specific goals are for each assignment.
· I have new ideas for types of writing assignments to try in my courses. I also got a lot of new information about ways to minimize time in grading and on giving feedback to students.
· More ideas for wider varieties of writing assignments and assignment purposes.
· I think that my writing assignments will be clearer to students.
· (1) I will write better assignments. (2) I will write more varied assignments. (3) I will stop editing student essays; instead, I'll use minimal marking and ask more questions.
· I think I will assign better writing projects as well as receive better papers due to the students' ability to decipher exactly what I wanted from them.
· It will help me design more effective assignments, integrate writing more fully into my students' learning, and respond to student writing more accurately.
19. This workshop was intended to serve as a model or prototype for future SCSU workshops. What might have been included that wasn't (or) what should be left out next time around?
· Writing Board should consider focusing on other specific issues and bring in different presenters.
· The panel presenters were dull. This could be shortened. We needed more time in small groups to discuss issues—and less time belaboring obvious points in large groups.
· More time devoted to practicing concepts; send materials to participants more in advance of workshop; Tell participants to read all important chapters (ch 12, 13, 15) ahead of time.
· I could have stood a slightly faster pace, but otherwise it was good.
· An agenda handed out prior to the workshop so attendees would know what to expect. I think time might be better used by having attendees do individual readings prior to the workshop and coming prepared for group discussions.
· I would add a practice session on grading papers.
· I thought it worked out well. I don’t think I would change anything (at least not anything I can think of now).
· Give us more examples of informal writing assignments which show student's progress in the writing process.
· It would be better if workshops could focus on one related set of disciplines, rather than university-wide.
· I feel the topics covered were fine. Just needs to be a bit longer workshop, 2 1/2 to 3 days.
· This workshop may include more examples of how to grade the papers and give the score.
· Include each professor's example of a student-completed assignment and how they graded the best and worst papers/assignment.
· I would love to look at syllabi--"before" and "after"--to examine in a detailed way how professors implemented change.
· The discussions on L-course guidelines was boring.
· More potato salad, less tuna salad.
· Writing is often seen as a teaching tool to be used in humanities courses. I appreciated the effort made to include scientific examples of writing assignments. However, it would have been helpful to have a panelist that taught an L-course from a different discipline than humanities. All 3 of their courses had a similar focus--history in some discipline.
· Discussions of relationship between Freshman Composition requirement and L course requirement.
· I think the workshop was quite good as it stands. In the future, if numbers increase, it may be appropriate to separate into different disciplinary groups for part of the workshop.
· ?
· More time on grading and rubrics. More on conceptual expansion through writing.
20. During the course of the semester, we will be offering one- to two-hour "mini-workshops" on topics relevant to teaching L-courses. Are there particular topics you would like to see covered?
· Rbrics and grading philosophies.
· Journal keeping—journal assessment—writing a journal assignment.
· Please include tricky points of English grammar for professors.
· Preventing plagiarism; specific methods for helping students with particular witing problems.
· Coaching students to improve writing skills (grammar, punctuation, spelling); Creating effective grading rubrics; peer review.
· Peer reviews; what changes have been made in commenting on student paper assignments after attending the workshop.
· Forming thesis statements; avoiding plagiarism; balancing evidence and interpretation.
· Time-saving strategies for grading. Interesting new approaches by colleagues. Case method assignments.
· Rubrics, another closer look at assignments.
· How to deal with students who don't want to deal with the writing (attitude).
· How to help students identify what is a thesis/problem issue or statement.
· Journal writing and evaluating.
· Invite science faculty members who teach L-courses to talk about their experience.
· "How to teach students to write a scientific paper" might be a god topic for science faculty.
· More time spent on evaluation, grading, writing comments.
· Peer review' grading rubrics (since we did not have enough time); perhaps one on using "technical" writing as a teaching tool.
· (1) Motivating student writers, particularly in General Education requirement courses. (2) Peer review.
· Teaching students how to document/footnote their sources.
· Grading rubrics (more than the handout). Assignment workshops (each semester).
· Plagiarism; topic development; peer review.
· Conceptually expansive assignments; getting students to self-invest in writing; evaluation; dealing with grammar/mechanics effectively; preventing premature closure in writing assignments.
21. What should SCSU do now to follow through with further assistance for you?
· Take this to Deans/Chairs.
· Keep dialogue going. Make sure I get updated on changes.
· Perhaps have a workshop in L-course proposal writing? L-course self-assessment?
· Some help with load allocation for professors who teach L courses would be appreciated (as discussed).
· Continue faculty support; maintain access to material; maybe have “reunions” to see how techniques worked.
· Continue exactly what you are doing so that the majority of faculty will have also had this workshop experience. This will make my job easier.
· (1) Keep promoting the 'culture of writing." (2) Perhaps doing departmental workshops--or norming sessions or grading and rubrics for evaluation of work. This might speak to grade inflation.
· Increase the stipend.
· Assist with recertification of present L; support with any problems/questions that may come up as I change a few items on my course outline.
· Provide more materials about how to enhance student writing.
· In addition to the mini-workshops, assist faculty with peer review of his/her assignment when they request assistance.
· Seems good support on web and in office if I contact, so feel no need for more effort on your part.
· Continue with mini-workshops and perhaps a "reunion" of this class to discuss changes/improvements as a result of the class [workshop].
· Department meetings for those of us who teach L courses; creation of a listserv for those of us grads of the program.
· Workshop is a good idea. More group discussions on teaching experiences.
· Periodic touching base with those who attended to see if they're applying anything, even if they don't propose an L-course.
· Support teachers of L courses with additional credit, tutors, grading assistants (a great way to support our graduate students!).
· Workshops; Frequently updated web site with useful teaching resources.
· A visit to L course sections from a Writing Center tutor might encourage students to use these services.
· ?
· As Bob already stated, just be available for questions, speaking to departments and for feedback.
· Continued workshops.
22. Any other comments you care to add?
· This workshop illustrates education in general; you get out of it what you put into it. I was very interested in this workshop and found it very helpful. I learned so much from large group discussions, too. I’m glad you let us ask questions and learn from each other.
· I am thoroughly enervated! Thank you!
· Perhaps more physical movement interspersed in participants practicing concepts.
· Thanks.
· The information included in the workshop will benefit teachers in any course—not just L courses. I found the group discussions [unfinished].
· Thank you!
· This workshop seemed to be more informative than the one some of my colleagues attended last year. I feel much more informed and eager to try out the new things I learned.
· Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
· Surprisingly interesting, relevant, and worthwhile.
· I am really glad I attended. I think Bean's text will make a great resource and the material/knowledge gained will make my course better for students.
· Very good for me to attend. I'll begin the first day with a short (1 paragraph) assignment!
· Great writing program and workshop!
· Expand discussion on issues of general interest. Eliminate discussion on questions of administrative nature (boring!)
· Good to hear positive comments from Marty re: what we're doing--outsider perspective. Important to have non-SCSU co-presenter to provide the outside perspective.
· I greatly appreciated the time given by Bob and Marty. This was a well-run workshop, and I feel I gained a lot of information that will be useful in all my courses, not only those designated as L sections.
· A listserv would be great for questions to other class [workshop] members or suggestions as to what assignments worked well.
· Thanks!
23. [Participants were asked if the workshop should be expanded to 2 ½ or 3 days.]
· Length of workshop is good (2 days). More than that would not be as effective.
· Yes.
· Yes.
· Considering point #19 [pace could have been faster], it would be good to go longer of it were more intensive. Although, I must say, I spent a lot of time coming for 2 days. This was a real challenge in time management for me.
· Perhaps.
· No. I think the follow-up mini-workshops will fill in the gaps. If the workshop were 3 days some faculty may decline.
· Maybe one more hour would have been nice. I wanted to learn more about peer reviews.
· Expand workshop another 1/2 day. Sometimes I felt rushed.
· Yes, absolutely. I disagreed with the pace [on question #10] and gave the workshop a 95 because we rushed through rubrics/grading at the end.
· Yes.
· No--make better use of the second day. Many questions were repetitive or better handled individually on logistics of registering L-courses. Activities in AM too long and groups ended up chatting a lot.
· Yes!
· 2 1/2
· Yes.
· Probably not--2 days is as much as I can "afford."
· Yes, if the workshop could be scheduled during a different week. What about doing it the same week as the summer tech workshop?
· Yes.
· I think 2 days is sufficient.
· Unsure.
· 3 days. The more covered the better!
· Yes.
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty
Writing-Intensive Workshop
January 16 & 17, 2001
Workshop Leaders:
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, Southern Writing Program
Martha Patton, Associate Director, Campus Writing Program, Univ. of Missouri
Participants
Beena Achhpal, Education
Shelley Bochain, Nursing
Christine Broadbridge, Physics
Rich DeCesare, Math
Sharleen Dickinson, English/SWP Tutor
Brian J. Huschle, Philosophy
Bennett Kottler, Science Education
Patricia Olney, Political Science
Jason Stenzel, Chemistry
Bill Sherman, Psychology
Participants represented 10 departments from 3 different schools within
SCSU
Faculty Panel
Kathy Connors, Art
Deborah Carroll, Psychology
Mia Kammerling, Library Science
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty Writing-Intensive Workshop
January 16 & 17, 2001
Participants responded to questions 1 through 16 by circling the appropriate letter(s), as described below:
NA = Not applicable or don't know. The statement doesn't apply to the workshop, or you simply aren't able to give a knowledgeable response.
SA = Strongly Agree. You strongly agree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
A = Agree. You agree more than you disagree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
D = Disagree. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
SD = Strongly Disagree. You strongly disagree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
Total evaluations: 26 [though one did not respond to 3c]
NA SA or A SD or D
52. The workshop's objectives were clear. 0 10 0
2. It was easy to remain attentive 0 10 0
3. a) The content of the workshop was worthwhile 0 10 0
b) The content of the handouts was worthwhile 0 10 0
c) Bean's Engaging Ideas was worthwhile 1 9 0
4. The presenters synthesized, integrated,
or summarized effectively 0 10 0
5. Some things were not explained very well. 0 0 10
6. The workshop provided opportunities to
apply information and ideas 0 9 1
7. My interest in this topic has been stimulated
as a result of this workshop 0 10 0
8. The workshop encouraged new viewpoints 0 10 0
9. The information presented seemed timely
and up-to-date. 0 10 0
10. The pace at which the presenters covered the material
was just about right. 0 10 0
11. Time was wasted by the presenters by dwelling on
insignificant, irrelevant material. 1 0 9
12. During the workshop, I felt free to ask questions
or present my opinion. 0 10 0
13. The scope of the workshop was too limited;
not enough material was presented. 1 0 9
14. I will be able to use some of the ideas from the workshop
in teaching my course(s). 0 10 0
15. I would advise colleagues to take future workshops. 0 10 0
16. The workshop raised challenging questions or problems
for discussion 0 10 0
17. If I were to grade this workshop on a scale from 1 to 100 points, I would assign it _____ points as an overall grade.
Average of all who
responded: 93.00
Number grading 90-100: 8
Number grading 80-89: 2
Number grading 70-79: 0
Number grading 60-69: 0
Number grading below 60:
0
Number who did not respond: 0
Note: One respondent gave "85-90" as the grade; in calculating the average, the number 85 was used.
18. How do you think the workshop will affect your teaching?
· I will certainly be applying specific ideas into my class(es). You got me thinking about this coming semester's courses!
· Positively--more apt to assign writing assignments.
· It will help me avoid possible burnout with grading papers. It will also help me to create more effective assignments.
· It gave me specific suggestions about the nature of assignments, how to develop scoring guides, and suggestions about assessment and evaluation.
· Perhaps the most important way is in helping me standardize grading procedures.
· I may be open to trying journals in large classes. I may develop better questions for assignments. I may better develop grading guides.
· It has given me new ideas on assessment, and writing problem-based assignments. I have already begun to rewrite assignments for the spring.
· It will sharpen the linkage between the quality of the assignments I give and the work my students return.
· I will apply information from the workshop immediately. For example, I will design and implement more effective and efficient evaluation/feedback methods.
· The concrete techniques of evaluation of work and design of problems will be used to amend the laboratory manual that I have written for my course. The informal writing assignments studied will be implemented regularly during lecture time.
24. This workshop was intended to serve as a model or prototype for future SCSU workshops. What might have been included that wasn't (or) what should be left out next time around?
· Could have us write a grading rubric or actually grade a paper using one.
· Better attention to group dynamics as a strategy for learning
· Reduction in # of reading exercises during the session. Increase in time (total duration of the workshop). Peer review -- a session to help faculty learn how peer review can be incorporated.
· More time could be devoted to developing assignments specific to the classes taught.
· No immediate ideas come to mind.
· Difficult to say--the workshop was well-paced and extremely informative. Probably a good idea would be to ask participants, after they have taught an L-course, what they might have wanted included.
· I would strongly recommend keeping this format.
25. During the course of the semester, we will be offering one- to two-hour "mini-workshops" on topics relevant to teaching L-courses. Are there particular topics you would like to see covered?
· Grading rubrics.
· Maybe attention to in-class writing assignments as a means for class learning.
· Creating a syllabus for an L-course
· Creating rubric/evaluation guidelines
· I would like to see more on technology--using web pages, putting courses on WebCT or e-college.com, etc.
· Journal use in class
· No special topics, but perhaps include some examples of student writing from SCSU courses.
· Nothing in particular.
26. What should SCSU do now to follow through with further assistance for you?
· I like the idea of mini-workshops.
· Impress upon L-course professors the importance of referring students to the Writing Center.
· Perhaps a follow-up workshop so we can see how the others are using ideas in their L-courses.
· No.
· The school should maintain the workshop format and ensure an abundance of space and staff for the writing center.
27. Any other comments you care to add?
· Very nice to meet and work with faculty I've not met before!
· No
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty
Writing-Intensive Workshop
August 21 & 22, 2001
Workshop Leaders:
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, Southern Writing Program
Susan McLeod, Director of Writing, University of California-Santa Barbara
Participants
Samuel K. Andoh, Economics and Finance
Jean M. Breny Bontempi, Public Health
Marga Brockhagen, Foreign Languages
Laura Burleson, Public Health (GTA)
Jennifer Coburn-Engquist, Communication
Christopher Dean, English
Sandra DiFrancesco, Communication
Deane Hetric, Foreign Languages
Bunny Madeira, Nursing (Writing Board member)
Vara Neverow, English
Mark Orner, Communication
Pina Palma, Foreign Languages
Luisa Piemontese-Ramos, Foreign Languages
Demian Pritchard, English
Kelly Ritter, English
Olive Santavenere, Nursing
Camille Serchuk, Art
Moses Stambler, Social Work
Michele Vancour, Public Health
Guest
Leah Stambler, Education, WCSU
Participants represented 8 departments from 4 different schools within SCSU
Faculty Panelists
Debbie Carroll, Psychology
Charlie Dellinger-Pate, Communication
Mike Shea, English
Evaluation Report
SCSU Faculty Writing-Intensive Workshop
August 21 and 22, 2001
Participants responded to questions 1 through 16 by circling the appropriate letter(s), as described below:
NA = Not applicable or don't know. The statement doesn't apply to the workshop, or you simply aren't able to give a knowledgeable response.
SA = Strongly Agree. You strongly agree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
A = Agree. You agree more than you disagree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
D = Disagree. You disagree more than you agree with the statement as it applies to this workshop.
SD = Strongly Disagree. You strongly disagree with this statement as it applies to this workshop.
Total evaluations: 18 (including one from non-SCSU guest participant)
NA SA or A SD or D
1. The workshop's objectives were clear. 0 18 0
2. It was easy to remain attentive 0 18 0
Additional
Comment: “My problem, not the workshop’s” [with “A” circled].
3. a) The content of the workshop was worthwhile 0 18 0
b) The content of the handouts was worthwhile 0 18 0
c) Bean's Engaging Ideas was worthwhile 0
18 0
Additional
Comment: “Very [SA]” [with “SA”
circled].
4. The presenters synthesized, integrated,
or summarized effectively 0 18 0
5. Things were explained very well. 0 18 0
6. The workshop provided opportunities to
apply information and ideas 0 18 0
Additional Comment: “Would have liked more time with
Assignments” [with “A” circled].
Additional
Comment: “Very [SA]” [with “SA” circled].
7. My interest in this topic has been stimulated
as a result of this workshop 0 18 0
Additional Comment: “It was already quite high” [with
“A” circled].
8. The workshop encouraged new viewpoints 0 18 1
Note: One participant circled both “A” and “D” with the comment, “Felt
there was a lot of domination and judgment of ‘right’.”
9. The information presented seemed timely
and up-to-date. 0 18 0
10. The pace at which the presenters covered the material
was just about right. 0 18 0
11. Time was well-spent by the presenters; they did not
dwell on insignificant, irrelevant material. 0 18 0
Additional
Comment: “Absolutely—well done” [with “SA” circled].
12. During the workshop, I felt free to ask questions
or present my opinion. 0 17 1
Additional
Comment “Felt some participants had the answers” [with “A” circled]
Additional
Comment: “Yes!” [with “SA” circled].
Additional
Comment: “Thank you!” [with “SA” circled].
13. The scope of the workshop was about right;
enough material was presented. 0 18 0
14. I will be able to use some of the ideas from the workshop
in teaching my course(s). 0 18 0
Additional Comment: “Absolutely” [with “SA” circled].
15. I would advise colleagues to take future workshops. 0 18 0
16. The workshop raised challenging questions or problems
for discussion 0 18 0
17. If I were to grade this workshop on a scale from 1 to 100 points, I would assign it _____ points as an overall grade.
Average of all who responded: 96.67
Number grading 90-100: 16
Number grading 80-89: 2
Number grading 70-79: 0
Number grading 60-69: 0
Number grading below 60: 0
Number who did not respond: 0
Note: One respondent gave "85-90" as the grade; in calculating the average, the number 85 was used.
18. How do you think the workshop will affect your teaching?
· I have given more thought to how I design writing assignments. For many, though, I will still not be as “constricted” because I feel it limits creative thought.
· I will incorporate [many of these ideas into] the courses I am teaching.
· Greatly. I will (I hope) increase clarity in both assignment description and evaluation. I will also invite feedback from colleagues outside of my discipline (but fellow L-workshop attendees) for feedback.
· I will be able to improve on my existing writing assignments to help my students get more out of them. I also have additional tools to help me grade and evaluate my students’ writing. Finally, I am clearly aware of the writing resources available on campus.
· I will be creating new assignments for each of the courses I teach. I anticipate a better response from students to these assignments. I also expect the learning process to be strengthened as a result.
· In too many ways to respond here. Evaluations will take on a whole new approach.
· It will help to focus course outlines on goals and to plan from the start writing assignments addressing these goals. I have learned much from the presenters’ and colleagues’ experiences how to assign writings more precisely and effectively and how to evaluate them better for student learning.
· I think that I will be a bit more explicit with my students re: the assignments’ goals in regards to critical thinking and writing. Further, I will be a bit more clear on assignments and add a grading rubric (I already give extensive comments). I am especially glad to see so many teachers in disparate disciplines interested in the teaching of writing.
· It will cut down on my grading. I’ll be able to justify better the grades I give to students.
· It will help me develop rubrics for grading and spend less time editing. And design better assignments.
· My teaching will become more effective because of the techniques that have been discussed here—particularly with reference to assigning precise work (and assessing students’ works).
· I think I will be better able to formulate assignments to make students learn what I want them to. I also think the workshop has given me good ideas for grading that will move me away from marking every spelling mistake at the expense of giving valuable commentary on style, content, etc.
· I plan to finally use (pt. Specific) rubrics for essays. Finally, I’m convinced.
· I think it reminded me of how specific I should be with my students about my goals, my objectives, and their evaluation.
· I am now more mindful of the clarity or lack thereof of assignments I give.
· It has given me some food for thought for my own methods.
· I provided me with ideas towards my students’ writing. It encouraged me to propose an L-course.
· Positively. Good ideas from Bean.
· Keep us updated on mini-workshops, etc. Also, SCSU should implement this as a fully supported program.
· Keep me posted! Help me with my department! I would like to incorporate rubrics and other Public Health general writing rules, but, that would be difficult. I would like to have our faculty more involved with writing programs and ??????.
· From what I have learned, you are already available to help in many ways. I’m looking forward to accessing these services at a greater extent (Writing Center).
· Continue on with this approach.
· Maintain limit on enrollment in L-courses, or even lower it.
· I’m honestly not sure yet.
· Just send me e-mail notices of future workshops.
· Keep me posted on new ideas floating around—strategies that work that appear in scholarly literature on rhetoric that I can’t keep up with.
· Continue to have a strong “writing” support.
· Give me (and others) a handout re: the writing center, including hours, exact location, etc. suitable for sharing with students.
· Four credits for composition.
· Keep me connected to the faculty. I’m looking forward to this listserv, and I was wondering about setting up an electronic bulletin board as well.
· Some, or as many of the materials as possible, should go on the website.
· Be available for assistance for input and student support.
· Perhaps work with the foreign language faculty to talk about issues in writing.
· Keep up the good work.
· Thank you. Extremely valuable.
· If it is not yet obvious, I enjoyed and got a lot out of this workshop. I need a week to process it all. This kind of information requires constant revisiting. I hope we can continue the dialogue.
· I don’t think instructors should be allowed to teach L courses without this workshop. Thanks.
· Time well spent.
· Good timing for this workshop. Thanks to the English department and the organizers.
· It was extremely well done. Thank you. I do think this should be a staple event. Especially useful was the opportunity to discuss teaching with people from different departments/disciplines.
· Thank you.
· An excellent faculty development event.
· It is nice that the workshop builds connections among faculty members from different disciplines.
· This was by far the most productive and useful workshop I ever attended at SCSU.
· Thanks for letting me attend. I learned a lot.
· Y’all rock harder than Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, and the Ramones.
· Good job.
· It was a worthwhile workshop.
· Thank you. This has been a very worthwhile workshop.
Appendix F:
Mini-Workshop Topics and
Participants,
Spring 2000-Spring 2001
Spring 2000
Mini-Workshops
March 2000: Peer Review
Facilitator: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim Director)
April 2000: Creating Problem-Based Writing Assignments
Facilitator: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim Director)
Guest Speaker: Christine Petto (History)
May 2000: "How Did it Go?": Reflections on Teaching Writing-
Intensive Courses at SCSU
Facilitator: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim Director)
Guest Speaker: Troy Paddock (History) and Elizabeth Owen (Art)
Participants:
Ingrid Grants, Recreation & Leisure
Shirley Jackson, Sociology & Anthropology
Christine Petto, History
Liz Owen, Art
Ed Jankovic, Economics & Finance
Michael Ryan, Sociology & Anthropology
Jacque Ensign, Education
Camille Serchuk, Art
Hugh Davis, History
Charles Stoddard, Buley Library
Fall 2000 Mini-Workshops
October,
2000: Developing Grading Rubrics
Facilitator: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim
Director)
October 2000: Rhetorical Approaches to Revision
Facilitator: Susan Wall (Northeastern
University)
November 2000: Problems with
Plagiarism
Facilitator: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim
Director)
Participants:
Karen Benson, English
Jon Bloch, Sociology
Kay Corbett, Education
Hugh Davis, History
Sharleen Dickinson, English
June Dunn, Women's Studies
Shirley Jackson, Sociology/Anthropology
Rod Lane, Dean, School of Education
Steve Larocco, English
Doris Marino, School Health
Sharon Misasi, Exercise Science
Jeff Mock, English
Vara Neverow, English
Elizabeth Owen, Art
Robert Page, Management
Jiongdong Pang, Chemistry
Pat Rukowicz, School Health
Carol Shieh, Nursing
Samuel K. Andoh, Economics and Finance
Michael Beetham, Psychology GA
Cathy Berman, Library Science
Al Bradshaw, Public Health
Jackie Bradway, Psychology GA
Sandy Bulmer, Public Health
Judith Buzzell, Elementary Education
Debby Carroll, Psychology
Charlie Dellinger-Pate, Communication
Bob Eldridge, Economics and Finance
Harvey Feinberg, History
Lynn Hidek, Library Science
Will Hochman, English
Mia Kammerling, Library Science
Mary Lang, English
Jean Mee, Exercise Science
Paul Petrie, English
Cindy Stretch, English
Frank Tavares, Communication
Barbara Worden, Social Work
Spring 2001 Mini-Workshops
April 2001: ESL Students in
University Writing Courses
Facilitators: Kate Reynolds (Foreign Languages) and Lorrie Verplaetse (Foreign Languages)
April 2001: Using Peer Review Effectively
Facilitators: Bob McEachern (SWP Interim Director), Nicole Henderson (English) and Carra Hood (English)
[March workshop on “Designing EffectiveAssignments,” to have been facilitated by an outside speaker, was cancelled and could not be rescheduled.]
Participants:
Mary Brown, Library Science
Kay Corbett, Education
Harvey Feinstein, History
Jay Halpern, English
Brian Huschle, Philosophy
Mary Lang, English
Mia Kammerling, Library Science
Steve Larocco, English
Bob McEachern, Interim Director, SWP
Windy McGlinsky, Writing Center
Jeff Mock, English
Paul Petrie, English
Appendix G:
Proposed End-of-semester
faculty survey,
Spring 2000
Southern Writing Program
End-of-Semester Faculty
Survey
Spring 2000
Please respond to the following questions.
If you would like to receive this survey as a Word file, contact Bob McEachern at 2-5526, or e-mail "McEachern."
1. What do you think the overall goals of an L-course should be?
2. How well do you think your course met these goals?
3. Do you think your students understand why Southern requires them to take L-courses? That is, do the students know why you are teaching the course this way?
4. Which of your assignments worked best at encouraging students to think critically? Which was least effective?
5. What type of feedback did students receive during your course (instructor comments on drafts; instructor comments on final versions; one-on-one conferences; peer reviews; writing center tutorials)? How effective was each type?
6. What knowledge/information/feedback do you have about writing tutors?
7. How do you evaluate student writing?
8. How successful have students been in revising their work?
9. Will you be making any changes next time you teach this course? What? Why?
10. Overall, do you think the revised L-course requirements help students learn better? What evidence do you have for your response?
11. Overall, do you think the revised L-course requirements help students write better? What evidence do you have for your response?
12. Why do you teach L-courses? What do you get out of the experience? Personally? Professionally?
13. What could the SWP do to improve our operation?
14. Any other concerns/comments not covered here?
Appendix H:
End-of-semester student survey,
Spring 2000
Southern Writing Program
Student Evaluation for
L-Courses
Course__________________________
Instructor____________________________ Date__________
Using the following scale, respond to questions 1 through 5. Consider only this class. "Writing ability" refers to the general skill of producing effective writing; it does not refer just to grammar or punctuation.
(A) Strongly Agree
(B) Agree
(C) Disagree
(D) Strongly Disagree
(N/A) Not Applicable
1. My writing ability was improved by receiving feedback (either oral or written) from the teacher about writing I did for this class.
2. My writing ability was improved by revising at least one draft of a writing assignment for this class.
3. My writing ability was improved by doing a variety of writing assignments (short and long; formal and informal) for this class.
4. Overall, my writing ability was improved by doing the writing assignments for this class.
5. Overall, my understanding of the subject matter was improved by doing the writing assignments for this class.
6. What do you believe would most improve your writing skills? Even if they are already good, in the space below please take a sentence or two to explain what could help you write even better.
Appendix I:
Executive Summary, Focus
Group Report, September 2001
Evaluation
of Guidelines, Workshops, and
Delivery of L Courses at
Southern Connecticut State University
Sandra Morgan, Ph.D.
September 14, 2001
Executive Summary:
Focus groups conducted on campus in May and June 2001 included faculty from four groups:
1) Faculty who took a workshop and had an L course approved
2) Faculty who took a workshop and have not yet proposed an L course
3) Faculty using the old guidelines to teach L courses
4) Faculty never involved with L courses
Analysis of focus group transcripts shows that
· There is strong support for both L courses and the workshops.
· Faculty members have made numerous improvements to their courses as a result of the workshops.
· There is mixed feeling about the role of the Writing Board.
· There are inequities related to the selection of faculty to teach the L courses, class sizes, and pay.
· There are concerns about possible abridgement of academic freedom by the Writing Board or other group related to L course administration.
Recommendations for continuation and/or changes in the L course process are outlined in detail in this report. The primary recommendations include
· Continue workshops and consider offering them more frequently
· Review political issues and inequities among departments
· Review the use/pay of adjuncts teaching L courses
· Be very aware of the academic freedom issue when making changes; include representatives of all affected parties in the decision-making and action planning
Appendix J:
Guidelines for Proposing and
Teaching an L-course, updated September 2001
Southern Writing Program
L-courses use writing as a vehicle for learning, requiring students to express, reformulate, or apply the concepts of an academic discipline. Current research has shown that revision is a necessary part of writing. Therefore, the emphasis on writing in L-courses is not intended primarily to give students additional practice in basic composition skills, but to encourage students to think more clearly and express their thoughts more precisely. L-courses take a two-pronged approach to learning, with the students addressing subject matter via written assignments and the instructor aiming to improve the quality of written performance by giving feedback and requiring revision.
The Writing Board wants the L-course program to include courses and instructors in all disciplines; we particularly want to foster L-courses in such previously under-represented fields as applied arts and social sciences, and the technical and quantitative sciences.
The following guidelines are not
inflexible, but they describe the sort of course the Board envisages. Alternative means to the same end will
certainly be considered.
1. A significant portion of the writing for the
course should be critical (analytical) writing.
·
The Writing Board recognizes that in some fields, students in lower-level classes
are in no position to challenge the maxims of the discipline or to take a stand
on unsettled questions. In such fields,
students may be required to do critical (analytical) writing in a number of
ways: to create a traditional research
paper in which a thesis statement summarizes the writer’s use and
interpretation of studies by experts, to explain the reasoning one could use in solving problems or
applying a concept, to write dialogues
that represent distinct perspectives on an issue, to articulate the distinction
between elegant and inelegant approaches to a project (e.g., designs for an
experiment to prove a given hypothesis), or to explain a technical concept to a
real or imagined audience of non-experts.
2. The critical (analytical)
writing component should emphasize revision.
3. L-courses should, in general, require students to write 5000 words over the course of the semester.
Appendix K:
Procedures for Proposing an
L-course,
updated May 2001
1)
An L-course
proposal originates from the faculty
member who will be teaching the course. Because the success of an L-course
depends on the teacher's professional commitment to incorporating critical
(analytical) writing and revision into classes, the Writing Board considers courses that are proposed by
individual faculty members, rather than courses merely assigned to instructors.
The Writing Board discourages proposals from faculty members in their first
year at Southern.
NOTE: This represents the usual procedure. However, the
Writing Board recognizes that unforeseen scheduling difficulties may occur
occasionally, and the Board will cooperate with Departments to ensure both that
courses can be taught when scheduled and that they will meet regular L-course
Guidelines.
2) L-course faculty attend a semi-annual workshop before they teach an L-course for the first time. Attendance at this workshop is voluntary and highly recommended, because it introduces faculty to SWP staff, to colleagues who share a commitment to using writing to enhance students' learning, and to multiple ways to incorporate writing into their courses. In every case, discussions center on how to leverage faculty time and effort to increase student learning most efficiently.
3)
L-course proposals
should be sent to the Chair of UCF, who will route them to the Board for consideration. In order to be included in the
University's printed Schedule of Classes, proposals must be received no later
than April 1 for classes that will begin the next January, and no later than
November 1 for classes that will begin the next September.
4) Each proposal includes the following items, either as part of the syllabus
or in a separate attachment:
· The completed proposal cover sheet (available in the Office of Academic Affairs, EN 125, or from the Southern Writing Program web site: www.southernct.edu/committees/writingprogram).
· A copy of the course outline or syllabus
· An explanation of how the writing assignments for this course fulfill the
expectation that "A significant portion of the writing for the course should be critical (analytical)" (see Guidelines for Designing and Teaching L-Courses, item #1)
· An explanation of how this course's "critical (analytical) writing component [will] emphasize revision" (see Guidelines for Designing and Teaching L-Courses, item #2)
· An explanation of how this course will "require students to write 5000 words over the course of the semester" (see Guidelines for Designing and Teaching L-Courses, item #3)
· A description of what percentage of the final grade will come from writing assignments
· A description of how grades on revised papers will be weighted
NOTE: Sample proposals will be available as models.
5) a. L-course faculty members are encouraged to attend one or more mini-workshops during the semester in which they are teaching an L-course. These workshops, usually one or two hours in length, will be held at various times during each semester and will include presentations and discussions with SWP staff and faculty colleagues on suggested topics of shared interest.
b. Faculty members submit the Writing Board’s Update Form before teaching the L-course for a fifth time or before the third year (whichever is sooner). The one-page form collects basic demographic information and asks for a very brief update of plans for the course.. The SWP staff will provide assistance in completing the form.
Appendix L:
List of L-courses approved
by Writing Board,
Fall 1999-Spring 2001
L-Courses Approved By Writing Board
(as of May 2, 2001)
Art 303 -- Art of East Asia
Liz Owen
Art 306 -- History of Medieval Art
Camille Serchuk
Art 311 -- History of Chinese Art
Liz Owen
Art 312 -- History of Japanese Art
Liz Owen
Com 440 – Cultural Influences on Communication
Charlene
Dellinger-Pate
Eng 213 -- Major American Authors
Paul Petrie
Eng 217 -- Themes in Literature (Political Imagination)
Cindy Stretch
Eng 304 – Technical Writing and Communication
Bob McEachern
Eng 316 – Writing for Business and Industry
Bob McEachern
Eng 342 -- Shakespeare I: 1564-1601
Mike Shea
Eng 405 -- Techniques of Teaching Composition
Sue Ellen Holbrook
Exs 380 -- Sport Psychology
Sharon Misasi
Geo 498 -- Special Topics in Geography (Geographies of Resistance)
Lee Berman
His 236 -- Origins of Modern Germany
Troy Paddock
His 237 -- Modern Germany
Troy Paddock
His 252 -- Roots of Modern America: 1828-1865
Hugh Davis
His 253 -- The New Nation: 1865-1918
Hugh Davis
His 304 -- Renaissance and Reformation
Christine Petto
His 306 -- 18th Century History (1715-1789)
Christine Petto
His 318/Wms 318 -- Women in American History, 1620-1890
Virginia Metaxas
His 319/Wms 319 -- Women in American History, 1865-Present
Virginia Metaxas
His 336 -- Nazi Germany
Troy Paddock
His 340 -- The Crusades
Stephen Judd
His 398 -- Special Topics in History (Race and Segregation in South
Africa)
Harvey Feinberg
His 438 -- Evolution of Science to 1900
Christine Petto
Jrn 240 -- Race and the News
Frank Harris
Lit 302 -- Literature of New Testament
Mark Heidmann
Lsc 300 – Literature for Children
Mary Brown
Soc 211 -- Social Problems in the U.S.
Shirley Jackson
Soc 480 -- Sociological Theory
Jon Bloch
Soc 490 – Seminar in Sociology
Shirley Jackson
Thr 310 -- Playwriting
C. B. Coleman
Appendix M:
The “Washington State
Handout”
Appendix N:
Guidelines for Independent
Studies to Receive L-course Credit, Spring 2001
L-COURSES AND INDEPENDENT STUDY
In the best of all possible worlds, the interests of students as developing writers and scholars would best be served if independent studies were not used to meet L-course requirements for the following reasons:
a. Independent study courses often require written work. However, they are not designed to provide the same level of support of writing skill development as regular L-courses. Logically they are meant to serve well-prepared students, who are capable and mature enough to carry out extended work on their own with consultation with a professor.
b. It would be most advantageous to students if independent studies were not undertaken until they had completed the L-course requirement. That would enable students to enter independent studies with stronger writing skills, ready to focus on the critical aspects of research and analysis at an advanced level.
c. Fairness to faculty suggests they should not be burdened with the task of developing independent study proposals with students who have to meet the extra guidelines for L-courses, especially at the last minute. Faculty should not be in the awkward position of trying to meet students' needs for L-courses and offering independent study as a convenience to the students, rather than as a legitimate learning opportunity.
That being said, some students may want to take an independent study and need an L-course opportunity, and some faculty members may want to offer an opportunity to do independent study for L-credit to students in their departments.
Therefore the
following policy shall govern approving Independent Study Proposals for
L-course credit:
·
A student may
take one independent study as an L-course if the student has already taken at
least one L-course at Southern. (Preferably the student would have taken two
L-courses prior to an independent study as an L-Course.)
Oversight of this policy shall
be the responsibility of the Dean.
Independent Study as an L-course Agreement Form
I, ____________________________________, am aware of the critical writing component (minimum 20 pages) of the requirements. I have described how critical writing will be part of my independent study in the independent study proposal.
I understand that substantial revision (not simply correction of mechanical errors) is a requirement in L-courses. I agree to undertake substantial revision of my work in the course of this independent study. If the basic product that I am responsible for submitting to fulfill the written requirements for this independent study is one long paper, I agree to submit it in stages to my professor so that feedback and revision can take place.
I have demonstrated to my sponsoring faculty member that I have already taken and passed at least one L-course at Southern Connecticut State University.
Signature of the independent study student: ____________________________________ Date: _______
Signature of the sponsoring faculty member: ___________________________________ Date: _______
This form of agreement is to be attached to the student's independent study proposal before the dean signs off on the proposal.
Note: Critical (analytical) writing addresses a question for which there is more than one plausible interpretation, explanation, analysis, or evaluation, and thus requires original thought from the student.
Appendix O:
Budget Information,
2001-2002
Southern Writing Program
Proposed Budget: 2001-2002
UA (University Assistants)
2 tutors per semester 12,500
UA 6,500
19,000
NTA (Non-teaching adjuncts) 0
USW (University Student Workers) 0
DP (Discretionary Personnel)
Workshop Co-facilitators (stipends, meals, travel, etc.) 6,500
Outside facilitators (for follow-up focus groups) 5,000
11,500
OE (Operating Expenses)
Workshop space rental/food 2,500
Faculty Honoraria 10,000
Bean Books 2,000
Supplies 500
15,000
======
Total 45,500
Time
To Teach
A Report from the
SCSU Writing Board to the UCF
On the Success of
the Southern Writing Program’s Pilot
Project
September 27,
2001
September 27,
2001
Members of the
Undergraduate Curriculum Forum:
The Writing
Board is pleased to present to you “Time to Teach: A Report from the SCSU
Writing Board to the UCF On the Success of the Southern Writing Program’s Pilot Project.”
Both the report
and the pilot project it describes involved the work of many, many dedicated
Southern faculty members. We want to
thank all of those who proposed and taught L-courses, attended workshops, and
provided encouragement and criticism during public and private meetings with
representatives of the Board. The Board
worked hard to balance all of the suggestions given to us, and we are proud to
make the recommendations contained herein.
There are
several features of the report, described in more detail, that we would like to
highlight:
·
Guidelines for Proposing and Teaching L-courses
that build on existing (1983) guidelines, offering further definition and
explanation.
·
Procedures for Proposing L-courses that minimize
bureaucracy while still encouraging “consistent character and quality” across
L-courses, as specified in the pilot’s charter.
·
Voluntary workshops and other support for any
instructor who wishes to use writing as a part of her classes.
Most of all,
the Board has enjoyed the vigorous debate that has occurred over the last three
years, as various parts of the pilot project have been implemented and
revised. Discussions about the amount and kind of writing, the
frequency of writing assignments, the uses and purposes of writing-intensive
courses, and the very value of the L-course requirement, have become regular
events for many members of the Southern faculty. If, ultimately, the purpose of the pilot is to begin to create a
“culture of writing” at Southern, based on dialogue about the place of writing
in the classroom and the curriculum, then we feel we have been successful.
Finally, the Board
would like to thank the pilot’s sponsors, the UCF and the Vice President for
Academic Affairs, for encouraging this conversation. We look forward to the conversation that will occur as a result
of this report.
Sincerely,
Members of the
Writing Board
[1] Art Young provides a somewhat personal perspective on the early history of WAC, but an instructive one, in “The Wonder of Writing Across the Curriculum” (Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 1 (1994): 58-72), in that it speaks to Southern’s program history from a national perspective.
[2] Introduction to Programs That Work : Models and
Methods for Writing Across the Curriculum, edited by Toby Fulwiler and Art
Young (Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1990)
[3] In Preparing to Teach Writing, for example, James D. Williams discusses the “product view” of teaching writing, which suggests that being able to identify and produce good writing equates to being able to teach others how to produce it (7). The “pragmatic view,” by contrast, recognizes that writing involves a number of social, cultural, and psychological issues that complicates its teaching, and suggests that teaching writing effectively involves knowing how to present problems to prompt effective writing, and respond to students in ways that encourage them to improve (7-15).
[4] Fulwiler and Young’s Programs that Work is probably the most widely accepted indicator of what model WAC programs look like, in their many forms. Support for faculty is a key feature of a “program that works.” In addition, Joyce Neff Magnetto and Barbara R. Stout make the same argument in their essay in McLeod and Soven’s Writing Across the Curriculum: A Guide to Developing Programs.
[5] This issue is addressed by several authors in Kathleen Blake Yancey and Brian Huot’s collection Assessing Writing Across the Curriculum : Diverse Approaches and Practices (Ablex 1997).
[6] These publications include Fulwiler and Young’s Programs that Work; Yancey and Huot’s Assessing Writing Across the Curriculum; and Herrington and Moran’s Writing, Teaching, and Learning in the Disciplines.