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 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 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 $ 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/writing 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 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

6. 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: Examples

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 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

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 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.

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 <60 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* • 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

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. 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

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 • It’s 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 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

20. 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