writing committee annual report 2012- web view2015. gene burns. hhp. [email protected]. 5241....
TRANSCRIPT
Writing Committee Annual Report 2012-2013
Membership
Faculty Members
2013 Beverly Chin (Chair) English [email protected] 24632015 Gene Burns HHP [email protected] 52412013 Richard Sattler* Anthropology [email protected] 58332014 Cathy Corr Applied Arts & Sci [email protected] 79032014 Megan Stark Mansfield Library [email protected] 28642015 John Glendening English [email protected] 52662015 G.G. Weix Anthropology [email protected] 63192015 Frank Rosenzweig* DBS [email protected] 5122
*resigned spring semester
Student MemberJody Drew PhD Student, Ed
Jill MelcherMark Triana
TA, WRIT 101TA, WRIT 101
[email protected]@umontana.edu
Joey Moore – fall only Undergraduate, Psyc [email protected]
Additional Representatives (Ex-Officio)
Ed Johnson, Registrar (or designee) [email protected] 2412Kelly Webster, Director, Writing Center** [email protected] 2470Kate Ryan, Director, CompositionDouglas Raiford, Assessment Committee LiaisonCarl Corder, Writing Assessment Coordinator
[email protected]@mso.umt.edu
44102883
**On leave March & April replaced by Jacob Hanson, [email protected]
Business items:
Writing Course ReviewA total of 48 writing course forms were submitted for new, renew or removal of writing designations. There were 5 new writing courses, 3 upper-division writing courses and 3 upper-division writing course removals. In addition to new courses the Writing Committee conducted a rolling review of a fourth of the writing courses (WRIT and LIT) to determine that they were in compliance with current criteria and learning outcomes. Fourteen writing courses and 10 upper-
division writing courses were approved. Originally English submitted its upper-division writing courses on the wrong form, so the committee extended the deadline for the department to correct the error. Likely as a result it did not submit several upper-division writing courses with the understanding that they would lose the writing designation. The consent agenda is available in Appendix 1. A few additional forms were received in the spring to reconsider courses approved (LIT 201) or not submitted (WRIT 222) in the fall.
History advertised a course as satisfying their upper-division writing requirement, but neglected to apply for the designation. The department asked for a retroactive approval. The committee expressed concern that departments are not held accountable when exceptions are made. The committee reviewed HSTA 417 and determined that it meets the upper-division Writing Requirement. The Registrar’s Office was able to add this to the schedule and Banner for the students currently enrolled. Both the Writing Course Form and the Upper-division Writing Course Form were revised based on feedback from the writing course review. Exemplary responses to the form questions, syllabus, and handouts with comments /arrows would be helpful.
A letter was sent to all writing instructors reminding them that writing learning outcomes are required on approved writing course syllabi.
Writing SymposiumThe Writing Symposium was Friday, November 2nd. There were between 20-30 participants at each of the three one-hour sessions:1) How Rubrics Help Students and Teachers, 2) Providing Productive Feedback in a Reasonable Amount of Time, and 3) Revision Strategies that Work. It was valuable to have presenters across disciplines and authentic audience participation. The Writing Committee hopes there will be future symposiums in collaboration with the Faculty Development Office and the Pedagogy Project. Writing committee members Beverly Chin, Cathy Corr, and Director Webster led sessions.
The Montana Writing SummitSeveral members of the Writing Committee attended the Montana Writing Summit: Sustaining Gains. Chair Chin was Keynote speaker. The summit brought together high school and college writing instructors from around the state. The Montana University System Writing Assessment (MUSWA) has worked on assessment and common core state standards for the past 12 years. Future efforts will focus on Literacy in Social Science, Science, and Technical Subjects (LISSTS) funded through a Title II grant.
Information Literacy WorkshopAn Information Literacy Workshop was held Thursday, March 7, from 11-12, at MLIB 283. The workshop was co-sponsored by the Writing Committee, the Faculty Development Office, and the Mansfield Library. The focus was to facilitate understanding of Information Literacy in terms of
critical thinking and reading. Sue Samson in the Mansfield Library gave the workshop. Director Webster and Professor Stark were involved with the planning.
Writing Center Annual ReportDirector Webster summarized the executive summary of the Writing Center’s Annual report (see http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/WritingCenterReportES11.12.pdf).
Assessment of CompositionComposition Director, Kate Ryan provided an overview of WRIT 101 assessment efforts. Members should reference the web page (http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ101/writ101.cfm) for general information. See Appendix 2.
PolicyWriting Course Transfer Equivalency Appeal Guidelines. The Writing Committee approved the draft procedure 202.50.5 (See Appendix 3).
Designated Writing Course Information SurveyData was needed in order to create a position paper on the need for additional lower- division writing courses. The Committee devised a survey and sent it to department chairs and academic advisors early spring semester. Data from the survey suggests that most departments are meeting their students’ needs. The results do not support an access /capacity problem across campus. They do show that some departments that require a specific type of writing (scientific writing) are struggling to meet students’ needs. The results might be different if students were surveyed. The comments relate to a lack of resources and some unfortunate scapegoating of WRIT 101. The results are available at: http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/Designated%20Writing%20Course%20Information%20Survey.pdf
Writing Program Requirement Labels By request the committee considered renaming the upper-division writing requirement.
The Committee’s first recommendation to ASCRC was to revise the labels from Approved Writing Course and Upper-Division Writing Requirement in the Major to “Writing to Learn” -WL and “Writing in the Discipline”-WD. ASCRC sent the motion back to the committee for further consideration. It was not in favor of “Writing to Learn” because all writing assigned in courses is designed for students to learn, so it is not a sufficient descriptor. The Committee dropped “to learn” from the first title and sent the recommendation back to ASCRC with a request for suggestions if not acceptable. The ASCRC Chair requested a detailed motion and Professor Tully Thibeau volunteered to help Chair Chin with the draft. The motion was drafted (See Appendix 4) and considered, but again it was sent back. It was not clear how this would be implemented or how the distributed model and 1-credit add on courses would be handled. Camie contacted DBS, Forestry, and Political Science for feedback. Forestry believes the WD prior to the course title will not serve their students and not all Forestry students take the distributed writing courses, which will not have a WD. Political Science felt the WD was an
ambiguous term given that writing-approved courses can also be in the student’s major discipline, and suggested UDW. Another concern was how the change would be communicated to instructors / departments. Since it was too late for the change to be implemented for the 2014-2015 catalog, the Writing Committee will refine the motion and articulate an implementation plan to be considered in the fall by ASCRC.
Motion to change title of General Education Group 1The following motion will be delivered to ASCRC early next fall in conjunction with the proposed writing program requirement labels:
Whereas, the responsibility of teaching writing is shared across campus and not limited to the English department; and
Whereas, the use of the word "skills" is reductive; and
Whereas, the structure of the requirement should parallel others (i.e. Mathematics, Modern and Classical Languages);
therefore Be it Resolved that the course catalog General Education Requirements Group I: English Writing Skills be amended to read Group I: Writing
Upper-division Writing Requirement to be taken at UMNancy Hinman, Interim Associate Provost requested the Committee consider policy requiring students to take the upper-division writing requirement at UM. The current catalog language (below) is sufficient.
Upper-Division Writing Requirement All students must meet the approved upper-division writing requirements specified by their majors. Students should seek specific information about the upper-division writing requirements in their major in the section of the catalog where information about their chosen major is given.
Writing Assessment Pilot – Phase 1 The rubric worksheet created last year was used to review the forms for approved writing courses (See http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/rubricWorksheet.xlsx). The results were entered electronically into a Google form for ease of data collection.
General FindingsOverall, writing course requirements are being met by the majority of teachers, as demonstrated by the survey data.
In particular, more than half of the courses include the writing outcomes on their syllabi (58%), while 68% provide students with detailed requirements for all written assignments.
Typically, 3%-6% of the courses taught do not meet one or more of the required goals.
3% of the classes do not meet the minimum requirement of 16 pages of writing.
The survey data shows that the following learning outcomes are being taught to students the majority of the time:
Use writing to learn and synthesize concepts Formulate and express opinions and ideas in writing Compose written documents that are appropriate for a given audience or purpose
The survey data shows that teachers are least successful in giving students guided opportunities for learning how to find, evaluate and use information effectively. This is an issue the committee is committed to improving (as the workshop this spring indicates).
Recommendations1. We recommend further improvement helping faculty provide students with guided
opportunities for learning how to find, evaluate and use information effectively. 2. We recommend that those few courses that do not meet the majority of the required
goals (and haven’t in earlier iterations) not receive credit as approved writing courses in the future.
Writing Assessment Pilot – Phase 2Phase 2 is designed to assess whether student writing shows evidence of meeting learning outcomes. After struggling to identify training papers using the analytic rubric created last year, the committee determined that a holistic scoring rubric was more appropriate for large scale programmatic assessment. A holistic rubric was drafted using the writing program learning outcomes modeled after the ACT Writing Assessment and Montana University System – Writing Assessment. The Committee reviewed the holistic rubric (See Appendix 5) and applied it to sample papers. A workgroup identified and annotated training papers for the writing retreat.
In the Fall semester of 2012, Instructors of 100- and 200- level Writing-Approved courses were asked to participate in a writing submission process for the Pilot Writing Assessment. Students were encouraged to upload a writing paper into Moodle. Nearly 500 samples were submitted from the 1,000 students asked to participate, along with the instructor’s instructions for the students’ respective assignments. From those 500 submissions, 70 were selected with a random sampling tool, and were then made anonymous by removing student and instructor names.
Writing Assessment Pilot RetreatThe Writing Retreat was Friday, April 12th at the Keep Restaurant on Ben Hogen Drive in Missoula. Four anchor papers were sent in advance to the 19 participants. The goals for the retreat were:
1. To discover how the training/scoring process supports scorers’ ability to assess students’ papers with validity, reliability, and efficiency;2. To critique and revise the draft 4-point holistic rubric;
3. To create training materials for next year’s assessment by identifying and writing draft annotations for training papers; and4. To consider the feasibility and sustainability of conducting an annual assessment of students’ writing through a writing retreat.
The agenda started with an introduction to the holistic rubric and anchor papers followed by a discussion of the annotations. Next, participants discussed training papers with annotations to norm their scoring to the rubric. Then, random papers were individually read and scored. Groups of participants discussed their scores and agreed on a consensus score. This process continued after lunch with participants identifying potential training papers and writing draft annotations for future retreats. A total of 47 papers were reviewed. Of these papers 4% were rated as receiving a score of 1, 27% a score of 2, 55% a score of 3 and 13% a score of 4.
Evaluation comments from participants (see appendix 6) confirmed that the holistic rubric was valid, easy to use and applicable for assessment purposes. Based on the success of this retreat, the holistic rubric and the general success of the Pilot for phase 2 this programmatic assessment of writing is a feasible replacement of the UDWPA. To implement fully the Writing Program Assessment the Writing Committee recommends the following:
1. Wider participation is necessary from 100 and 200 level writing approved course instructors.
2. A larger pool of scorers is needed—primarily tenure track faculty, as this would foster program-level discussion of writing and assessment. This increase in faculty participation will allow us to score a higher volume of submissions.
Given the charge from ASCRC, the Writing Committee plans to submit the final report on the complete pilot project (phase 1, 2, and 3) and recommend the end of the UDWPA and the adoption of program level assessment effective early fall 2013.
Appendix 1
Approved Writing Courses
BGEN 200 Business Communication NewCSCI 215E Social and Ethical Issues in Computer ScienceFILM 320 English Literature ShakespeareHSTA 315 The Early American Republic 1787-1848 NewHSTA 385 America Families and Children NewHSTR 334 Latin American: Reform and Revolution NewHSTR 358 Russia since 1881 NewLIT 110L Introduction to LiteratureLIT 120L Introduction to PoetryLIT 201 Introduction to Literary StudiesLIT 210L American Literature ILIT 211L American Literature Survey IILIT 220L British Literature: Medieval to RenaissanceLIT 221L British Literature: The Enlightenment to RomanticismLIT 222L British Lit: Victorian to Contemporary: LectureWRIT 121 Introduction to Technical WritingWRIT 201 College Writing II: Advanced CompositionWRIT 240E Arguments and Contemporary IssuesWRIT 325 Writing in the SciencesNRSM 200 Natural Resources Writing
Upper-Division Writing Courses
LIT 300 Introduction to Literary CriticismLIT 304 US Writers of ColorLIT 316 Topics in Postcolonial TheoryLIT 327 ShakespeareLIT 342 Montana WritersLIT 343 African American LiteratureLIT 353 MiltonLIT 376 Literature and Other DisciplinesLIT 494 Capstone Seminar in Literature
ANTY 403E Ethics and AnthropologyHSTA 468 UG (467)
Researching and Writing Early America and the Atlantic World
HSTA 417 Prayer and Civil RightsHSTR 422 Historical Research Seminar: Postwar America New
LIT 494 Capstone Seminar in LiteratureLS 484 Novel Ancient and Modern NewBGMT 444 Management Communications RemoveBMGT 426 Strategic Management Remove
SW 310 Social Welfare Policies and Services RemoveSW 300 Human Behavior in the Social Environment New
Appendix 2
Composition Program Overview
PlacementStudents Placed into WRIT 095, 101, or 201 based on their scores on the following tests: MUSWA, SAT or ACT Writing Subscore, SAT Writing Section, Combined English/Writing ACT, or AP Lang and Composition score. We also use a local assessment for those students who don’t have scores to report. This approach follows BOR Policy 301.17 – Composition Placement, established in 2007.
Overview of CoursesIn addition to College Writing I (WRIT 101) and College Writing II (WRIT 201), the Composition Program offers composition classes in the computer classroom; occasional special topics courses in Rhetoric and Composition Studies; and Teaching College Composition (WRIT 540), a requirement for first-year composition instructors. This course provides new UM Composition Program teaching assistants with an introduction to theories and practices that surround composition pedagogy.
MissionThe Composition Program seeks to advance the University´s mission to pursue academic excellence in the context of writing instruction. Undergraduate composition courses, as part of general education at the University of Montana, help students become more effective writers and researchers by teaching students flexible strategies for researching and composing texts. These courses privilege a workshop environment where students learn about composition and rhetorical theory by practicing reading, researching, and writing as acts of inquiry. Students often work in small groups to write, read, and problem-solve together. Students create portfolios of their writing throughout the semester because this kind of assessment supports student agency and change–that is, rhetorical agility developed over time in different genres.
Outcomes for College Writing I, WRIT 101. http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ101/outcomes101.cfm
Outcomes for College Writing II, WRIT 201http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ201/outcomes201.cfm
WRIT 540 Overviewhttp://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ540.cfm
Methods of Assessment Students (enrolled in right class). placement, placement survey tool.Instructor Assessment. Course observations, course evaluations (narrative and scantron), grading tables, renewal process. Program Assessment. We look across the instructor assessments over time and to inquire into particular questions to do program assessment. For instance, we regularly look at a few specific questions on the scantron evaluation, including those on the instructor’s use of class time, or ability to explain (instructions or concepts). We have also used questionnaires, reflections, and conversation to gather information from teachers & instructors. We emphasize instructor assessment as a critical part of program assessment because our TAs often have little to no teaching experience and only teach between 2-4 semesters. Inquiry-Based Assessment. Based on what we learn from other assessments, we might decide there’s a need for a specific assessment project.
Example: Conducted assessment when WRIT 195 was being developed into an ongoing course to articulate the outcomes. Phase 1. Conducted a questionnaire to gather information about why students choose to take WRIT 201 & looked at a sampling of reflective introductions to student portfolios. Phase 2. Collected teacher reflections on the assessment project, an additional set of reflective essays, and samples of student writing from the major papers. We all met together and talked about what we observed across the samples, what we thought it meant, and what we wanted to change or keep in the course to create the outcomes and design our syllabi. Example: Conducting assessment of portfolio learning. The first phase is a survey of WRIT 101 at the end of semester. Our goal is to gather information on this question: How is portfolio teaching going for first year teachers of writing?
Appendix 3Procedure Number: 202.50.5Procedure: Writing Course Transfer Equivalency Appeal GuidelinesDate Adopted: 10/1/12Last Revision: 10/1/12Approved by: ASCRC Writing Committee
Writing Course Requirement and Transfer StudentsThe Admissions Office (406-243-6266) evaluates transcripts for course equivalencies with the exception of UM’s approved writing courses. If transfer students believe a transfer course meets the approved writing course requirement (http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/guidelines.php ), they may petition for an exemption through the Writing Committee. These students must provide the following information to the Writing Committee. Appeal information should be submitted to the Faculty Senate Office, UH 221, [email protected], 243-5553.
1. A cover letter outlining the basis for the request. Include pertinent information such as contact information, student ID number, and how you fulfilled this requirement in a course at your previous institution.
2. A syllabus and course description. The course must include at least 16 pages of writing for assessment and at least 50% of the course grade should be based on your performance on writing assignments.
3. Three papers from the equivalent writing course or courses following the completion of the course with original instructor comments. Original instructor comments are those grading and feedback markings on papers that are returned to the student for revision or at the end of the term. Papers without these comments will not be considered. At least one of these papers must be at least six pages long and include a bibliography or works cited. Your papers should demonstrate your ability to:
Use writing to learn and synthesize new concepts formulate and express written ideas that are developed, logical, and organized Compose written texts that are appropriate for a given audience, purpose, and context Revise written work based on comments from the instructor Find, evaluate, and use information effectively and ethically Begin to use discipline-specific writing conventions Demonstrate appropriate English language usage.
Incomplete packets will not be evaluated.
This information pertains only to the approved writing course, not the departmental upper-division writing requirement. Students should speak to their major department regarding any issues relating to the upper-division writing requirement.
Appendix 4
Writing Requirements for GraduationMotion to ASCRC
To fulfill the writing requirements at UM and to demonstrate proficiency in the skill of writing, students must satisfy the following four requirements in the order given:
1. Entry-level Composition WRIT 101 or 201 (ENEX 101, WTS 101, ENEX 200, or equivalent),
2. One Approved Writing Course (designated W),3. The Upper-Division Writing Proficiency Assessment, with a score of 3/3 or better,4. Upper-Division Writing Course in the Discipline (designated WD) *
* This requirement may be fulfilled by:• One upper-division writing course (numbered 300-400), determined by the
department and approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee• An upper-division writing expectation, determined by the department and
approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee**
** This could be a distribution model which includes a synthesis of upper-division courses that collectively meet the learning outcomes of WD or a 1 credit add-on attached to an upper-division course that collectively meet the learning outcomes of WD. *
Note: The Approved Writing course will be identified in the catalog and on students’ transcripts by titles that start with W: course title. The Upper-Division Writing in the Discipline course will be identified with a title that starts with WD: course title.
Upper-Division Writing Courses
The following courses are approved as meeting the criteria for the upper-division writing course in the discipline. Students should consult with their advisor regarding the requirement specified by their major.
Note: DBS majors (Biology, Microbiology, and Medical Technology) may take a combination of two or three courses to satisfy the Upper Division Writing Requirement in the discipline. See listing at: (list maintained on Department Website)
Forestry majors in Resource Conservation, Forest Management, Wildland Restoration, and Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Management may satisfy the Upper Division Writing Requirement in the discipline by taking a combination of three courses. See Listing at: (list maintained on Department Website)
Include in normal Upper Division Writing Course listing:
PSCI 400 *
WD: Advanced Writing in Political Sciences*1 credit ad-on course for Political Science Majors taken in conjunction with another upper-division PSCI course.
Sample of Courses listed on DBS website
2/3 Writing Courses
BCH 486 Biochemistry Research LabBCH 499 Senior ThesisBIOB 411 Immunology LabBIOB 499 Senior ThesisBIOE 371 General Ecology LabBIOL 342 Field EcologyBIOH 462 Principles of Medical PhysiologyBIOM 410 Microbial GeneticsBIOM 499 Senior Thesis
1/3 Writing Courses
BCH 482 Advanced Biochemistry IIBIOB 410 ImmunologyBIOB 425 Advanced Cell BiologyBIOE 403 Vertebrate Design & EvolutionBIOE 406 Behavior & EvolutionBIOE 428 Freshwater EcologyBIOL 483 Mol. Phylogenetics & EvolutionBIOL 484 Plant EvolutionBIOM 402 Medical Bacteriology & MycologyBIOO 320 General Botany (S)BIOO 434 Plant Physiology Lab (S)BIOO 470 Ornithology (S)
BIOO 475 Mammalogy
Appendix 5
ASCRC Writing Committee Holistic Rubric for Approved Writing Courses (Revised April 12, 2013)
Learning Outcomes for Approved Writing Courses
1. Use writing to learn and synthesize new concepts2. Formulate and express opinions and ideas in writing3. Compose written documents that are appropriate for a given audience or purpose4. Revise written work based on constructive feedback5. Find, evaluate, and use information effectively6. Begin to use discipline-specific writing conventions (largely style conventions like APA or
MLA)7. Demonstrate appropriate English language usage
Score 4: AdvancedThese texts demonstrate a clear ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas is articulate, developed, and well-organized. The texts show a strong sense of purpose and audience. The texts consistently show the writer’s ability to evaluate and use information effectively. Writing style (word choice and sentence fluency) is highly effective for the purpose and audience. The writer is beginning to use discipline-specific writing conventions with general success. While there may be a few errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, a strong command of English language usage is clearly evident.
Score 3: ProficientThese texts demonstrate an ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas is generally developed and organized. The texts show a clear sense of purpose and audience. The texts show the writer’s ability to evaluate and use information. Writing style (word choice and sentence fluency) is effective for the purpose and audience. The writer is beginning to use discipline-specific writing conventions with uneven success. While there may be some errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, a competency in English language usage is evident.
Score 2: Nearing ProficiencyThese texts demonstrate developing ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas may be vague, unclear, and/or unorganized at times. The texts show some attention to purpose and audience. The texts reveal the writer’s uneven ability to use information; use of information may be insufficient. Writing style (word choice and sentence fluency) is sometimes ineffective for the purpose and audience. The writer shows minimal knowledge of discipline-specific writing conventions. A basic control of English language usage is apparent, even though frequent errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics may occasionally hinder understanding.
Score 1: NoviceThese texts demonstrate difficulty in synthesizing concepts. Expression of ideas is confusing, minimal, or irrelevant; the organization is illogical or weak. The texts show little understanding of purpose and/or
audience. The writer’s use of information is inaccurate, inappropriate, or missing. Writing style (word choice and sentence fluency) is not effective for the purpose and audience. The writer shows little to no awareness of discipline-specific writing conventions. Severe problems with grammar, usage, and mechanics show poor control of English language and impede understanding.
Appendix 6
EVALUATION OF ASCRC WRITING RETREAT, April 12, 2013
Your name (optional) ___________________________________________
Please respond to this evaluation. Your comments will help the ASCRC Writing Committee write its 2013 report and will assist in our implementation of next year’s program assessment of writing-approved courses. Thank you.
A. Please check the statement that best reflects your knowledge and experience using rubrics to assess writing before this retreat.
__14__1. I have created and used rubrics to assess students’ writing.
__2__2. I knew about rubrics, but have not used them regularly in my assessment of students’ writing.
____3. I did not know about rubrics for assessing students’ writing.
B. Please place a check in the column that represents your opinion.
StronglyAgree
Agree No Opinio
n
Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. This retreat helped me understand and apply a holistic rubric to students’ writing. 13 3
2. This retreat helped me assess students’ writing accurately and efficiently. 10 6
3. This retreat was a valuable professionaldevelopment experience for me. 13 3
4. I would recommend this retreat to mycolleagues. 13 3
C. Please write your responses to these two questions. Feel free to continue your responses on the back of this page.
1. What aspects of this retreat were most useful for you? Listing the training paper scores on the white board learning about the rubric and seeing how the writing committee and colleagues
interpreted and applied it The afternoon work was fascinating – it was really helpful for me to learn from the other
writing teachers in my group We are designing a WRIT 101 assessment project for next year. So I appreciated being
part of the norming process and the discussions and strengths of types of rubrics. Even more important, though, were the discussion son papers and the wrap-up conversation about the rubric and assessment process.
As usual, the opportunity to discuss strengths and weaknesses of various pieces of student writing was VERY valuable. Everyone who teaches a class with a writing component should have to attend.
To gain an understanding of what is expected from student writing overall. I continue to find it very useful to mill over the wide variety of writing skills and
practices. The conversation Reading a range of student writing The opportunity to discuss student writing with colleagues from different disciplines The opportunity to normalize my expectations and evaluations The opportunity to see the range of assignments, approaches, and topics used to fulfill the
requirements for approved writing courses Reading papers and discussing The discussion Linking the rubric to the learning outcomes of approved w courses not the assignment Focused practice with experienced colleagues Good preparation - not too much to do Excellent coordination Besides the networking it helps remind me to look at the big picture with student writing
besides focusing on the little stuff (i.e. grammar and citations) which can drive me crazy Conversations about student writing and hearing my colleague’s opinions. Looking at
actual student work to evaluate writing. This is very practical and informative The opportunity to recalibrate my assessment tools.
2. What might be changed to improve this retreat? More multi-reader (more than five) assignments Lots of papers – a bit of reading fatigue Schedule earlier in the semester when time and energy are higher Lunch could be shorter Reminder before scoring – students taking an approved writing course may not have
ANY experience understanding / knowledge of the discipline… for example. Student writing a literary analysis with no previous experience or expertise.
Bigger groups/tables so as to generate more scores per paper Adapt the rubric: Change “purpose” to “assigned purpose” Somehow encourage (insist upon) Can’t think of anything More table space I ran out of steam for reading papers somewhere in the second group. A norming
discussion might go well as a break of 10 minutes. As we build training papers, this will get better and better. More TT faculty – train the trainer Mix up or add groups together so that you are able to hear from a greater diversity of
colleagues.
Other The collaborative nature of this retreat is its strength, so I think it functions great as it is.
I loved our final discussion especially. So be sure lots of time is left for that. This was a terrific experience and I was happy to be part of it.
Great smacks. Well organized. Very collegial Good transition from last year, especially with the rubric already developed We can get bogged down in discussion but Beverly was good at keeping us moving.