General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Session IV: Choosing the Best Model for UNLV - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Session IV: Choosing the Best Model for UNLV

Description:

General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Session IV: Choosing the Best Model for UNLV October 6, 2006 Goals for Session IV Review common models for ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:57
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: writingli
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Session IV: Choosing the Best Model for UNLV


1
General Education Writing Across the Curriculum
RetreatSession IV Choosing the Best Model
for UNLV
  • October 6, 2006

2
Goals for Session IV
  • Review common models for implementing WAC
  • Models
  • Culture Change
  • Writing Intensive Requirement
  • Upper-Division Service Course
  • Junior-Rising Proficiency
  • Assessment/Outcomes
  • Communication Across the Curriculum
  • Choose the best model in light of objectives and
    mission from session III

3
Components vs. Models
Components are features of models. A lone
component could be considered a model, but
typically more than one component is necessary
for a viable WAC program
  • Curricular elements of WAC program
  • A WAC freshman composition course
  • Upper-division writing-intensive courses in the
    English department
  • Upper-division writing-intensive courses taught
    in other departments
  • Adjunct writing classes attached to courses in
    other discipline
  • Components of WAC programs
  • Faculty workshops, seminars
  • Writing center
  • Writing fellows or TAs assigned to courses as
    writing coaches
  • A program director
  • An all-university writing committee
  • A WAC advisory committee
  • In-house WAC publications
  • Informal but regular gatherings
  • Outside speakers or consultants
  • Follow-up interviews or meetings with faculty
  • Research program - faculty interested in studying
    communication

Administrative Support/Funding
4
Culture Change
  • Workshop model faculty development only
  • Increased resources to writing center, teaching
    and learning center
  • E.g. UNLV, Reno, Colorado State, Toledo, Purdue
  • Pros workshop method, some teaching/learning/writ
    ing will improve
  • Cons No curricular requirement, teaching not
    valued in research culture, need funding for
    support components (faculty stipends, WC, fellows)

5
Writing Intensive Requirement
  • Students take 1-5 courses designated as writing
    intensive (WI) or writing emphasis (WE)
  • Restrictions can include above 300-level or
    above, taken in major
  • Can use point system or WI credits, so
    courses can be WI1, WI2, etc. depending on the
    amount of writing
  • Courses have to meet WI criteria
  • Include total number of pages
  • Incorporate process (revision, feedback, peer
    review)
  • Include informal writing assignments
  • Writing is significant portion of grade
  • Writing is addressed in class (e.g., assignment
    sheets)
  • Class size typically capped (conducive to
    paperload) but doesnt have to be (e.g.,
    Kentucky)
  • WAC program director/committee reviews and
    approves WI course proposals
  • The more the WIs required, the lower the
    word/page guidelines per course

6
WI Requirement Examples
  • George Mason
  • 1 upper-division in major
  • Size 35
  • 5000 words/20 pages
  • University of Missouri-Columbia
  • 2 WI courses (1 in major)
  • Size 20, larger classes have TAs
  • 3500 words/14 pages
  • Duke University
  • 2 WI courses
  • U of Arizona
  • 1 WE course
  • Arizona State
  • 2 Literacy and Critical Inquiry (L) courses (1
    upper-division, preferably in major Literacy is
    competence in written and oral discourse
    critical inquiry is the gathering,
    interpretation, and evaluation of evidence)
  • University of Minnesota
  • 4 WI (2 upper division, 1 in major)
  • 10-15 pages
  • University of Hawaii-Manoa
  • 5 WI courses, transfers prorated
  • 4000 words/16 pages
  • (Hilgers, Hussey, Stitt-Bergh)
  • MIT comm. intensive
  • 4 CI courses 2 CI humanities, arts, and social
    sciences, 2 CI in major
  • LSU Comm. Intensive
  • Courses must emphasize least 2 of the CxC
    components written, spoken, visual, or
    technological
  • Note elective certificate program

7
WI Requirement Pros Cons
  • Pros
  • Institutionalizes curricular requirement
  • Can mandate small classes
  • Can create culture of writing, with proper,
    long-term support
  • Many existing courses nearly meet guidelines and
    can be approved with only minor changes to
    assignments
  • Cons
  • Some departments dont have faculty to staff
    small sections
  • Can create student resistance to writing in
    classes not designated as WI
  • Necessary support components must be adequately
    funded for program to work long term (writing
    center, writing fellows, faculty development)
  • WI oversight (course approval/assessment) must be
    maintained to ensure rigor and consistency

8
Upper-Division Service Course
  • Spreads traditional English composition
    requirement vertically up curriculum by
    requiring 1 upper-division English writing course
  • Many programs move to 3- to 4-credit composition
    requirement
  • Traditional 6-credit model not working
  • Streamlines overlap and repetition in ENG 101/102
  • Can decrease class size in ENG classes
  • New course applies to those who meet revised
    placement guidelines, old courses exist for those
    who dont
  • E.g. NC State, Clemson, Kentucky, Washington
  • Many programs allow WI option
  • Variation could include upper-division writing
    links, ENG course attached to, e.g., capstone
    course, etc.

9
Upper-Division Service Courses Pros/Cons
  • Pros
  • Creates vertical writing program
  • Manageable institutionalization of WAC
  • Can allow for phase in of WI requirements
  • Cons
  • Need to create new courses
  • Need to staff new courses
  • Need to articulate with system and state
  • Not as extensive as most ambitious WI programs

10
Junior-Rising Proficiency
  • Variation on UD Service Course model, requires
    students to pass proficiency requirement
  • Before 60 credits or end of junior year
  • Testing method varies, but either timed essay,
    specified grade in course, or portfolio
  • Depending on score, students either take
    upper-division service course, WI course in
    major, or nothing

11
Junior-Rising Proficiency Examples
  • CUNY Proficiency Exam
  • 2 parts, graded separately
  • Part I Writing and Reading essay
  • Grand Valley State (MI)
  • Junior-level proficiency essay exam scored
    locally by 2 professors in discipline
  • Either pass test or take U-D Writing course
  • Also requires students to take 2 WI courses
    (labeled Supplemental Writing Skills)
  • Cal State Graduation Writing Assessment
    Requirement (GWAR) (since1978)
  • Gives individual schools flexibility
  • 10 schools use exam, 2 schools use course, 3
    schools use exam and course, 7 schools use exam
    or course
  • Course option is usually WI course in major
  • Washington State
  • Junior Writing Portfolio (exam plus 3 writing
    samples)
  • It is not, however, an exit examination, but
    rather a junior-level diagnostic to determine if
    your writing abilities have advanced in ways that
    can handle the writing demands of upper-division
    courses and courses in your major

12
Junior-Rising Proficiency Pros and Cons
  • Pros
  • Curricular requirement
  • Can create university-wide dialogue on standards
  • Reinforces importance of communication skills as
    a graduation requirement
  • Cons
  • Validity problems with essay exam only option
  • Short, impromptu essays ? long, researched,
    revised writing
  • Fairness to non-native speakers
  • Washington State uses portfolio (essay exam plus
    papers)
  • Hard to enforce lt60 cr. or junior-year
    requirements
  • Logistics of finding and training local readers
  • Standards can vary by program and devolve without
    oversight

13
Outcomes/Assessment
  • Give programs autonomy and support to develop and
    assess own communication outcomes
  • Decentralizes control of curriculum
  • Allows for diverse units to create what's most
    appropriate for their students
  • Hence any "standard" requirements are very
    minimal

14
Outcomes/Assessment Examples
  • Clemsons Pearce Center for Professional
    Communication
  • Digital portfolio project (gen ed pilot
    requirement)
  • NC States Campus Writing and Speaking program
  • Outcomes assessment project
  • LSUs Communication Across the Curriculum Program
  • Certified Excellent Communicator
  • Funded by 5 million gift
  • Miami of Ohios Center of Writing Excellence
  • Uses grants/incentives for various workshops,
    initiatives
  • funded by recent 10.5 million gift
  • We might also call this the institute model,
    or the culture change with deep pockets model

15
Outcomes/Assessment Pros Cons
  • Pros
  • Decentralization suits individual units existing
    preferences and practices
  • Can focus on integrating research to determine
    discipline-specific outcomes
  • Cons
  • Why have a requirement at all if model is so
    decentralized? (or is this a pro?)
  • Does not assure core writing experience for all
    students
  • Time-consuming to implement on per program basis
  • Might not hold up over time
  • This model typically exists at programs funded by
    generous endowments used to support
    incentive-based initiatives

16
CAC as model
  • Emphasizes multiple modes of communication
    written, spoken, visual, digital
  • Can be a feature of any of previous models
  • Visual and digital modes arguably can be
    subsumed under writing, but still leaves
    question of speaking
  • LSU, Clemson, NC State, UNC Greensboro,
    Pittsburg, Delaware, Southern Illinois University

17
LSUs CxC Requirements
  • Emphases on at least 2 of the following
    components of communication (you may address all
    4, but only 2 are required for certification)
  • Writing Informal writing to learn course content
    (e.g., lab notebooks, observation or reading
    logs) and one or more formal papers, one of which
    must be revised with feedback from the faculty
    member
  • Speaking Small group, interpersonal, and formal
    public speaking, including at least one
    individual presentation (includes individual
    presentations within team presentations) that is
    prepared in advance, revised with feedback from
    the faculty member (or teaching assistant)
  • Visual Communication Communication activities
    and assignments using artistic, graphic,
    technical, iconographic, etc., methods for
    inquiry, to inform, to please, or to persuade
  • Technological Communication Communication
    activities (e.g., using digital discussions,
    list-serves or other media in a setting where
    students analyze such communication displaying
    competence with discipline-specific software used
    for communication) and assignments that involve
    technology (e.g., building an effective website)

Source LSU CxC website
18
CAC Pros Cons
  • Pros
  • Recognizes that writing and speech communication
    often connected
  • Recognizes shifts in modes of communication,
    especially digital and visual
  • Accounts for multimodal learning, multiple
    intelligences
  • Establishes administrative structure, avoids
    redundancy
  • Allows for more interdisciplinary participation
    and leadership
  • Its the trend (i.e., more fundable initiative)
  • Cons
  • Adds complexity
  • Requires interdisciplinary leadership

19
Discussion Activity 1
  • Write for 5 minutes about the kind of commitment
    that UNLV should make to WAC/CAC
  • Consider the following questions
  • Do you believe UNLV should make a (national?)
    statement about the institutions commitment to
    writing/communication (e.g., U of Hawaiis 5 WI
    requirement)?
  • Do you believe that an emphasis on
    writing/communication in undergraduate education
    is compatible with the institutions research
    goals?
  • What is your personal commitment to
    writing/communication? Do you see yourself being
    an active participant in such an initiative,
    provided youre adequately supported?
  • Share results with group and come to a consensus
    about the kind of commitment UNLV should make to
    WAC/CAC

20
Discussion Activity 2
  • What model (or hybrid of models) should UNLV
    adopt, given the following
  • Your groups commitment to WAC/CAC from the
    previous activity
  • Discussion of objectives from session III
  • Discussion of resources from session II
  • General discussion from session I
  • Take 5 minutes to individually rank models in
    order of feasibility
  • Share results with group, come to a consensus
    ranking and justify your groups ranking
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com