Writing Courses and Assessment at SMSU

1. Writing Courses and Assessment at SMSU Presentation at the All-University Meeting by Lori Baker October 23, 2008 on behalf of the Composition Subcommittee of the English Department: Lori Baker, Teresa Henning, Doug Anderson, Mary Ellen Daniloff-Merrill, Neil Smith, and Marianne Zarzana

2. The Composition Subcommittee and the English Department • The English Department began its review of composition offerings over 3 years ago via a subgroup made up of professors from a variety of specialties, the Composition Subcommittee • The committee began from the ground up, establishing a mission and goals for first year composition • The English Department approved this mission, statement of teaching conditions, learning outcomes, and shared pedagogical approaches in May of 2007 (see handout)

3. The Composition Subcommittee and the English Department (cont.) • After establishing these baseline standards, the committee reviewed the curricular structure • A new curricular structure was proposed and accepted by the English Department last year, to be forwarded to the LAC Committee for consideration • The proposed curriculum was presented to the LAC Committee last spring

4. English Department’s Proposed Writing Curriculum • The proposed curriculum was first based on the perceived (by both English faculty and anecdotally by faculty from across the university) needs of our SMSU students and their developmental learning as well as what it would take to accomplish the shared outcomes and pedagogical goals that the department had agreed upon • Our outcomes and pedagogical goals are informed by the best practices noted in award-winning programs that we felt were applicable to our university context • Additional practical considerations for the first year course include the needs of Challenge and transfer students

5. English Dept. Proposal ENG 151 Academic Writing I (4 cr.) (includes intro to research and argument) ENG 251 Academic Writing II (4 cr.) (intensive research and argument with sections devoted to broad disciplines) 300-level writing intensive course in students’ majors 400-level writing intensive capstone course LAC Comm. Proposal 100-level Intro to Rhetoric and Composition (3 cr.) 300-level issue seminar with writing component 300-level “core skills” intensive class 400-level capstone class Proposed ENG Writing Courses at SMSU

6. Rationale for a 4-Credit LAC ENG Course • Folding of the content of current two three-credit courses into one course (loss of sophomore-level course if current LAC proposal with single writing course is adopted) • Course pedagogies (as agreed to departmentally last year—see handout) will include conferencing and computer literacy components in addition to the extended research paper time; these components and approaches require additional time to complete in one semester (in some ways, this is comparable to the lab requirement for science). • A four-credit model aligns with best practices from the field of rhetoric and composition, for which at least 4-6 credits is still the standard for most programs recognized for excellence; schools with 3 credit or no formal first year composition often require more writing intensive courses and have strong faculty training and support for writing across the disciplines • A four-credit model aligns better with the requirements of the majority of other MnSCU and private universities in the state. • Transfer students are often caught needing to take an additional class because a single 3 credit course cannot fulfill all of the requirements necessary for transfer (think not just of the credit number, but the kinds of work required, such as research; a 3 credit course is often not considered comparable because it will not require the same amount of work and research). • A 4-credit model is necessary for Challenge classes, which must mirror the on-campus curriculum (dual enrollment students need 4 credits of writing to graduate from high school; currently this is fulfilled by our 3 credit 102 plus 1 credit 101 which they take together); please consider that English Challenge generates significant FTE.

7. Comparison to Other MnSCU Universities • Mankato: 1 4-cr. plus two (6 cr. or more) WI courses from different disciplines • Winona: 1 4-cr. plus 6 credits of “writing flag” courses • St. Cloud: 1 4-cr. plus one upper-division WI course, usually in the major • Metro: 2 writing courses (I assume 6 cr.) • Bemidji: 2 College Writing courses (6 cr.) • Moorhead: 1 3-cr. writing course plus 4 writing-intensive courses (2 from the middle/outer cluster of the core, 1 300/400-level from major, 1 200/300/400-level which might be designated by the major)

8. Comparison to “Certificate of Excellence” Writing Programs • University of Denver: (on quarter system) Writing-intensive first year seminar in first quarter followed by two-course writing courses in second and third quarter (all in first year); one of three other required core courses must be a writing-intensive section • Ball State: most take two semesters of writing, and some three if they were required to take developmental (basic) writing; curriculum was revised to address WPA Outcomes (see our handout), technological literacy, and coherence across sections • Eastern Michigan: 2 required courses in first-year sequence; they align with the WPA Outcomes (see our handout) • Purdue: A 4-credit course with innovations for addressing students’ needs individually through computer lab, conferencing, and tutoring components • Marquette: 2 required courses in the first year, with an emphasis on critical literacy throughout; the first focuses on Academic Literacy, the second on Public Sphere literacy • Carleton: Students must pass a “writing rich” course with a C- or better and complete (and pass) a sophomore writing portfolio; highly specific outcomes for writing rich courses and well known for full support of writing across the curriculum

9. Baseline Requirement for LAC Writing Course • Eliminate ENG 101 (1 cr.) and instead require ENG 100 (3 cr.) for students who do not place at a minimum score or come in with baseline competencies for college-level writing (i.e., students who do not place into LAC ENG) • ENG 100 is already on the books but not offered because no one takes it since it is not required • Placement measures are under development • Number of sections of ENG 100 will depend on what minimum baseline is established; estimates run from 3-6 sections in a typical fall semester

10. Rationale for Replacing ENG 101 • Research shows that focusing only on grammar review out of context of writing does not improve students’ writing scores (although it does correlate to higher math scores). (Weaver, Teaching Grammar in Context) • Best practices in composition support a holistic approach to teaching writing, in which grammar instruction is one “facet” along with other features such as genre, audience, content, etc. (NCTE, “Writing Now”) • All position statements on the teaching of writing and grammar from all national composition organizations call for the teaching of grammar in context (see Conference on College Composition and Communication; National Council of Teachers of English; Council of Writing Program Administrators). • “Employers who place high value on accuracy, clarity, and usage in workplace writing also value rhetorical features such as persuasive appeals to a real audience, and they often expect employees to participate in collaborative construction of written texts.” (NCTE, “Writing Now,” citing the National Writing Commission of 2004) • PLEASE NOTE: Students who need to take ENG 100 will still receive intensive attention to grammar but in the context of their own writing; taking ENG 100 first allows focus on grammar before entering ENG 151 instead of concurrently.

11. Writing Assessment From Harrington, O’Neill, and Broad’s (Council of Writing Program Administrators) Presentation to AAC&U Feb. 08 “Why We Love (Good) Writing Assessment” • It interprets writing in local contexts • It creates site-specific assessments • It connects disciplines, genres, and audiences • It facilitates ongoing decisions about students, courses, and programs

12. Composition Subcommittee’s Concerns about Writing Assessment • The need to involve all faculty in developing criteria for writing, especially in the disciplines • Assessment of proficiency would be different from assessment of programs (see CCCC Position Statement) • Emerging best practices in composition are moving away from developmental rubrics (see Sommers 2008); WPA advocates “dynamic criteria mapping” in keeping with recognition that localized practices and contexts will generate specific criteria (see Harrington, O’Neill, and Broad 2008) • The need to develop an understanding that writing skills are not able to be taught in a single semester • The need to recognize that students will not be “proficient” in all aspects of writing at the end of four years; writing abilities continue to evolve after school in specific contexts

13. Additional Writing Assessment Considerations Some Guiding Principles from “Writing Assessment: A Position Statement”(Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2006) • “Best practice is informed by pedagogical and curricular goals, which are in turn formatively affected by assessment” • “Best assessment practice is undertaken in response to local goals, not external pressures.” • “Best assessment practice uses multiple measures.” “Ideally, writing ability must be assessed by more than one piece of writing, in more than one genre, written on different occasions, for different audiences, and responded to and evaluated by multiple readers as part of a substantial and sustained writing process.”

14. The Rubric (See rubric handout) • Follows a developmental model across four years • Outlines in broad terms what competencies students should be able to exhibit in their texts by the end of that year (this is different from overall learning outcomes suggested by the WPA) • Criteria in left-hand column are purposefully broad in order to address primary, common writing concerns from any discipline or genre (for example, “idea development” can account for thesis, hypothesis, research question, etc.) • Each discipline/major will need to further refine and address the criteria as appropriate for that discipline/major; this is accounted for in each category past the first year

15. Portfolios and Writing Rubrics • The Composition Subcommittee assumes that the rubric under development would be adapted or portions extrapolated for use in the future as a program (i.e., LAC Communication Goal) assessment tool. • As such, more guidance would be needed in implementing a collection and rating system for student portfolios; the rubric provides basic categories that can apply across disciplines, but faculty in the disciplines will need to refine the specific criteria further for their discipline as students progress out of the single first year writing course. • Assessment measures must be weighed against the resources available to conduct the assessment (i.e., to pull a sample and conduct portfolio review will require adequate time, faculty, and resources to do so)

16. Faculty Training and Support • In order to perform both formative and summative writing assessment well, faculty across the disciplines will need ongoing training in how to address writing in their classrooms and how to assess writing programmatically • In order to conduct the writing intensive courses proposed in the LAC, course sizes will need to be kept small enough to manage writing tasks and ongoing formative assessment

17. Formative Writing Assessment “Formative writing assessments are diagnostic tools that can provide feedback to teachers and students over the course of an instructional unit or term. Some common methods of formative writing assessment include commenting on drafts, soliciting peer response, and holding writing conferences.” NCTE, “Writing Now” 2008

18. Summative Writing Assessment “Summative writing assessments usually take place after some instruction has occurred, and involve assigning a value (i.e. a letter grade on a final essay or portfolio, or a standardized test score) that articulates a measure of student achievement in writing.” NCTE, “Writing Now” 2008