Title: General Education Writing Across the Curriculum Retreat Session IV: Choosing the Best Model for UNLV
1General Education Writing Across the Curriculum
RetreatSession IV Choosing the Best Model
for UNLV
2Goals 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
3Components 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
4Culture 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)
5Writing 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
6WI 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
7WI 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
8Upper-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.
9Upper-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
10Junior-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
11Junior-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
12Junior-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
13Outcomes/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
14Outcomes/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
15Outcomes/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
16CAC 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
17LSUs 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
18CAC 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
19Discussion 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
20Discussion 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