Transcript The Resort-Casino: A Case Study of Community and Workplace

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 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
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
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
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
$ Administrative Support/Funding $
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/writing will improve
• Cons: No curricular requirement, teaching not
valued in research culture, need funding for
support components (faculty stipends, WC,
fellows)
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 doesn’t
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
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
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 don’t 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
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 don’t
• 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.
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
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 upperdivision service course, WI course in major, or
nothing
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”
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 <60 cr. or junior-year requirements
– Logistics of finding and training local readers
– Standards can vary by program and devolve without oversight
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
Outcomes/Assessment: Examples*
• Clemson’s Pearce Center for Professional
Communication
– Digital portfolio project (gen ed pilot requirement)
• NC State’s Campus Writing and Speaking program
– Outcomes assessment project
• LSU’s Communication Across the Curriculum Program
– “Certified Excellent Communicator”
– Funded by $5 million gift
• Miami of Ohio’s 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
Outcomes/Assessment: Pros & Cons
• Pros
– Decentralization suits individual units’ existing preferences
and practices
– Can focus on integrating research to determine disciplinespecific 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
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
LSU’s 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
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
– It’s the trend (i.e., more fundable initiative)
• Cons:
– Adds complexity
– Requires interdisciplinary leadership
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 institution’s commitment to writing/communication (e.g., U of
Hawaii’s 5 WI requirement)?
– Do you believe that an emphasis on writing/communication in
undergraduate education is compatible with the institution’s
research goals?
– What is your personal commitment to writing/communication? Do
you see yourself being an active participant in such an initiative,
provided you’re adequately supported?
• Share results with group and come to a consensus about
the kind of commitment UNLV should make to WAC/CAC
Discussion Activity #2
• What model (or hybrid of models) should UNLV adopt,
given the following:
– Your group’s 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 group’s ranking