Minutes

Back to Resources Jump to: 10/18 | 11/04 | 11/11 | 11/18 | 11/29 | 04/07 |


 * Action items**;
 * (Mike and Ted) Create tutorials to add to a tab on the department's website (in video and in text) for:
 * Credit By Exam
 * //Foundations of College Writing//
 * (Claire) Translation of //Foundations of College Writing// outcomes for students and faculty outside English Department
 * (Committee) Plan for a small pilot in the fall of //Foundations// portfolios before the council convenes (Claire asks at next dept. mtg)
 * (Jerry) Look into getting a grant for curriculum development of
 * Foundations
 * Alternate //Theory and Practice of Writing// courses (for Secondary Ed, for Creative Writing)
 * (Claire and Jerry) talk to Mike McCully about alternate //Theory and Practice of Writing// Courses
 * (Committee) Meet during finals week to look at some sample portfolios

Agenda for 4/7 1. policy statements for new CBE --When are we going to offer it? At set times, so as to avoid having to do them throughout the semester In the past, we've offered it whenever they came to us. Students may not realize initially that we're asking them to do a lot more. Provost likes it, has sent it to SDJ--probably will be approved. Make it possible for temp faculty to be involved by hiring readers for one year at a time. Table this discussion till we've seen how many apply and how long it takes to read them (though this might be easier now that we have rubric criteria. Add same kind of tutorial videos (see below) to English Department website tab for CBE --Are we going to offer to transfer students? Yes, because otherwise, they'd have to take comp or transfer credits --How are we going to limit it? Transfer students will probably have taken a comp equivalent People should not be allowed to take it twice (except by decision of Writing Committee) (Motion proposed, seconded, approved) Only transfer and incoming students should be allowed to take it (same exception). ACE high school kids? Enough other avenues.

2. timeline for Foundations Course -figure out the tasks and timeline for implementing and explaining our new outcomes to students, means of collection, and plans for assessment. media type="file" key="Jing Demo.swf" width="360" height="270" Create tutorials like this to add to a tab on the department's website (in this form and in text). Transitioning to "Desire to learn" e-portfolios Translation of outcomes for students and rest of university faculty to use in courses. SDJ says if we can get 5 portfolios from each section, that's enough to assess

-Discuss plan for course proposal including GEPs (now Gen Ed Points) attached to the course. Plan for a small pilot before the council convenes Look into getting a grant for curriculum development

3. “Teaching Writing” proposal from Mike and Ted -300 level course replacing theory and practice for secondary ed majors, -making existing theory and practice a requirement for all English majors Hold back on this because it might limit literature classes till we have another comp/rhet person For now, a course that is workshop theory/practice offered once a year for creative writing and other majors and then a course for SEE majors with a pedagogy component (for things like teaching how to give feedback, how to facilitate peer review, how to design writing assignments) Class would fill with creative writers and other majors (including more professional writing minors) Would it steal students from literature classes? Opens possibilities for service: writers in the schools for creative/professional writing, and collaborations with high school teachers for SEE Have to surface misconceptions about/while interacting with secondary students Is it a problem to have faculty teaching two upper division courses? maybe not if temp faculty teach Intro to Creative Writing Don't raise caps on courses--just add another section? Middle grades required to take Intro to Creative Writing might take the pressure off if they could take a Writing Pedagogies class

Minutes for 02/24 Action Items:
 * Add to Dept. Mtg. agenda (DONE)

English awards

Problems in entry-level writing placement --student attitude/timing, teacher attitude/timing, topics vs.actual curriculum, decisions not made by writing faculty --methods, computer scoring, portfolios, indirect tests, self-placement

How to address Goals --Goal D: interpret and compose in variety of genres; --Goal E: discuss and apply writing processes

UNLV Portfolio as model? --Submit two pieces: one print-only one not --One timed writing component we assign --Timed writing is reflective essay on their own work --Charge fee for readers' stipend --More readers, more stipend --More process-oriented task --Better measure of our goals (validity) --Already aligned with Gen Ed goals --BOLT account for electronic submissions

Our version: --Timed essay (on campus) --Reflective on portfolio --Two pieces (500-1500 words each) + annotations (specific to goals, e.g., "Show me a place where you're aware of audience?") --Text of their choosing in response to goals (and that shows process, drafts) --Essay in response to readings (including visual component) and goals (2 weeks)

 1. Syllabus 2. Plan for Dept. Mtg. 3. Plan for BUCC
 * Minutes for 11/29**
 * Action Items:**

1. Syllabus Changed "mode" to "media" to avoid confusion with prior definitions of mode as process essay, etc. Added Steph's revision to catalog description. Discussed removing VALUE rubric from table: it adapts to us, not the reverse; not the same as goals

2. Plan for Dept. Mtg. Possible outline: --syllabus --getting rid of Comp II --assessment day (where we all share the work)

What are the objections that might be raised? To multiple media/genres? Look at academic texts, gen ed goals, examples of student work, add resources to the wiki To the redefinition of "writing intensive" and how it might impact the potential for other departments to teach such courses (making us solely responsible for writing again)? Split discussion of the syllabus "in house" from what happens next "outside"? To getting rid of Comp II? (as getting rid of jobs? as affecting the requirements of other depts.?) If our faculty want to teach other writing intensive courses, they can. We can help other departments, but not there to fulfill their needs. Should we leave it there till further Gen Ed developments? We need a WPA/WAC.

3. BUCC We're arguing that the university should value writing. We should put Steph's draft on the wiki and build on it. --add to process section --add "writing as thinking"


 * Minutes for 11/18** **(back to top)**
 * Action items:** **Next meeting: 9am 11/29 (room TBA)**
 * Prepare for dept. mtg 11/30:**
 * **Look at outcomes/assessments (Claire, Michael);**
 * **Assessment method (Ted)**


 * Prepare for BUCC mtg. 12/1**
 * **Presentation (Mike, Michael)**
 * **Syllabi (Jerry, Mike, Claire)**


 * Research (Ted, Mike Stephanie)**

1. Terry's concerns 2. Division of labor 3. Timeline

1. Terry's concern If there's a second "writing intensive" course required under the new plan, will we get stuck teaching even more writing courses? We could: A) have a lower-division"writing intensive" course (old Comp 1); B) do away with old Comp 2 so that other departments are responsible for creating "upper-division writing intensive course(s) in disciplines; C) define "writing intensive" for our (lower- and upper-division courses--e.g., Approaches) as __.__ D) have faculty members serve as consultants for other departments' writing intensive courses

How to assess multiple goals for new "writing intensive" course(s)? (without dying of exhaustion) Take faculty "reading day(s)" Use one "phase 2 portfolio assessment" with guiding questions: How have you accomplished these goals (using your texts as evidence)? Do we have to wait for the plan to be more formulated before we proceed? If so, what is contingent? Wait for dept. meeting to hear from Terry about what might make Outcomes Assessment difficult?

2. Division of labor Presentation


 * Outcomes
 * Assessments
 * Research (Ted, Mike)

 1. Provost on class size 2. Gen ed revision clarification re: freshman writing intensive 3. Outcomes
 * Minutes for 11/11 (back to top)**
 * (****Action items: Continue to add outcomes, align with GE goals/Impact, add assessments/models, add supporting research****)**

1. Class size hearsay, so ignore for the moment We have research from NCTE, CCCC on class size which, though it may be dated, supports our argument We should keep in mind

2. Gen ed & writing intensive How will writing intensive be defined? A course can include a lot of writing but not support/teach writing And a course can also teach about a specific topic and at the same time provide support/teach writing Do we, as a department, want to claim a "required lower-division writing intensive course" while the Gen Ed is malleable? Do we want to suggest a definition of what "writing intensive" means that could be adopted by others (but leaves it open for others to claim that for a course in another discipline)? What if that other course is not as rigorous or provides different preparation? Is that already happening in the current system? Claim the equivalent of Comp 1--"one writing-instruction-focused lower-division course in the English department"--and then allow students to fulfill the equivalent of Comp 2 within a discipline If we do this, what's the English department contribution to Gen Ed? If not, what kinds of writing prepare students for "college level writing"? We think that Comp 1 teaches basic ideas of rhetorical situation (Audience, Purpose, Genre), and Comp 2 can be more open "One lower-division writing intensive course in the English department (or equivalent in another department) in which "writing intensive is defined as...a focus on rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, and genre) and on regular practice of individual and social writing processes (e.g., drafting, peer review, and reflection)"

3. Outcomes Deleted #4 about disciplinary conventions--not our responsibility in Comp 1 Add genre to #1? Use language of VALUE rubric ("control of syntax and mechanics" and "content development") as additional rows of outcomes."

 Claire reviews minutes from last meeting: Mike had three outcomes, Stephanie had four: --write for audiences --write for rhetorical situation --write with process --write with evidence
 * Minutes for 11/04** **(back to top)**
 * (Action items: Add to language of outcomes from Gen. Ed. goals and Impact 2015)**

If we can articulate these, we can get ahead of the game: propose something research-based (from other institutions, etc.) before they're handed down to us. "Here's what others have done, what might work for us."

Outcomes-->How to measure (and how they fit with "Impact 2015")

How to measure? Phase II/Exit portfolio - evaluate some aspect of student writing and also their explanation of rhetorical strategies (because they can say it earlier than show it) like UMASS portfolio review, self-assessment across assignments in the course, self-eval throughout with Q's after each assignment (for reflection and inviting feedback on particular things)

Make this a part of new master syllabus? How to convince other faculty that this is feasible? Outcomes are broad enough to be fulfilled in various ways; upload assignments/activities that fulfill these Common assessment(s) based on these general/flexible criteria that can be efficiently evaluated

When would we evaluate these? Take a "reading day" for professors, time built in for norming and evaluating together


 * Minutes for 10/18** **(back to top)**

As a starting point, Mike McMully listed some outcomes for us to consider for Comp I


 * Prepare students for adapting to diverse audiences when they write.
 * Help students develop a sophisticated understanding of writing effectively in response to a rhetorical situation.
 * Develop students' understanding of the value of drafting and an extended process in producing text.*

To which both Clair and Stephanie added:


 * evidence-based argument. Helping students to effectively "[f]ind, evaluate, and ethically use information" (GE Goal 4).

Stephanie offered a similar list of objectives which included:


 * awareness of the importance of audience (interdisciplinary) and purpose to composing
 * visual argument--all students must practice something more than linear, text-based forms of argument.
 * extensible (?)
 * conventions--grammar & mechanics; paragraph

In addition to listing potential outcomes, we discussed the following

Whether or not the new Gen Ed goals__ have been approved (separate from discussions of GEUs and alternative proposals).

The importance of presenting our rationale and methodology as we propose outcomes to the department

Tinberg & Sullivan, "What is College Writing" Ed White--Phase II Portfolio Assessment NCTE/CCCC standards peer & aspirational universities.

We also began to explore means of assessment.

I mentioned Phase II portfolio projects in which the primary object to be assessed would be a student's reflection/defense/articulation of his or her own understanding and decision-making process while composing.

Clair suggested adding at least one piece of writing to be assessed.

We also discussed possible assignments and the need (or not) for having a universal assignment to assess.

We agreed to meet again on Nov 4th.
 * (back to top)**