Department
of English
Part 1: GENERAL EDUCATION
Current
English Department General Education Program
Under
the current SCSU General Education program, the English Department has six
courses that can be used to meet university General Education requirements in
Distribution Area A: Humanities and Fine Arts.
These
courses are:
English
184: Introduction to Literature
English
201: Classics in Literature
English
202: Gender Studies in Literature
English
203: Mythology and Sacred Literature
English
215: American Indian Literature
English
216: African-American Literature
English
203, 215, and 216 also can be used to fill the Diversity requirement (students
must complete 9 credits within the Diversity block). Part of the Diversity requirement is a
one-course Racial Issues requirement. We
are in the process of having English 215 and 216 included in the course group
that can be used to satisfy this requirement.
This
configuration of courses was developed for the conversion from a quarter
calendar to a semester calendar that started in the fall of 1998.
English
201-216 can also be taken for elective credit toward the English major.
Enrollment and Faculty Assignment
Since
the beginning of the semester calendar in the fall of 1998, these courses have
been offered as noted in the table below:
|
Course |
# semesters
offered |
# sections
offered |
# taught by
probationary/ tenured faculty |
Enrollment |
|
English 184 |
9 |
42 |
18 |
1817 |
|
English 201 |
7 |
8 |
7 |
293 |
|
English 202 |
8 |
12 |
10 |
485 |
|
English 203 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
231 |
|
English 215 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
461 |
|
English 216 |
9 |
11 |
11 |
287 |
In
the last two years, the department has been experimenting with teaching large-
section-lecture/ITV/and
Assessment
Assessment of the General
Education Literature course block is complicated by the fact that we are
finding ourselves caught between two general education programs, the SCSU
General Education Program and the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. The latter was developed over the past two
decades in order to facilitate transfer of credit between institutions in the
Minnesota Higher Education System. Last year the
The assessment section of
this report will undertake to do that through a review of the current departmental
syllabus file for this course block.
This file is not a complete file for the past five years, but rather a
file of representative courses taught in the spring and fall of 2002.
Current SCSU General Education Program
Under
the SCSU general education program, courses are approved into the general
education curriculum based on their meeting 3 of the following five criteria:
1) Students will show
they are competent at a bachelor’s degree level in university academic skills:
communication (writing, reading, speaking, listening), reasoning, quantitative
thinking, researching, computer skills.
2) Students will
explore and integrate subjects outside their majors and minors and will relate
those subjects to traditional disciplines as well as their majors and minors.
3) Students will use
inquiry and critical judgment to make decisions.
4) Students will
interpret, evaluate and integrate human values.
5) Students will
compare the lives of people from cultures and situations to their own and
assess, and integrate diverse experiences and views, and translate or
illustrate differences to others.
Courses identified as Diversity courses have been approved
as fulfilling additional criterion of having 100% of their content in a
diversity area. All students are
required to take 3 of these courses.
There is also a sub-category of Diversity courses called Racial Issues courses, and all
students are required to have taken one of these courses. Currently, the 1 course Diversity requirement
under SCSU’s MTC program is satisfied by only these Racial Issues courses.
This
is the current statement of general education criteria as learning objectives
for the general education program. To be
approved for general education, courses must meet three of these five
objectives.
The
course descriptions of the department’s offerings for the humanities
distribution are the following.
ENGL
184. Introduction to Literature
A study of imaginative literature to improve the understanding and increase
enjoyment through reading, writing, and discussion. Emphasis on thematic
organization, historical period, cultural representation, and type of literature
will be the option of instructor. 3 Cr. F, S.
ENGL
201. Classics of Literature
Introduces non-English majors to in-depth study of rich literary traditions of
Great Britain, the United States, and/or other nations or cultures; including
at least two genres and historical periods. Does not count toward the English
major or minor. 3 Cr. F, S.
ENGL
202. Myth, Legend, and Sacred Literature
A study of mythology based on Greek, Roman, and other legends in relation to
literature. Sacred texts may be included. 3 Cr. F, S.
ENGL
203. Gender Issues in Literature (Diversity)
In works by female and male writers, course explores literary depiction of
gender roles, gender and sexual identity/orientation, and/or gender relations
in context of social structures and values. 3 Cr. F, S.
ENGL
215. American Indian Literature (Diversity)
Contemporary American Indian literature in poetry, short stories, essays, and
novels. Consideration of tradition, history and current realities from an
Indian viewpoint as well as negative stereotypes and discrimination that Native
people face. 3 Cr. F, S.
ENGL 216. African American
Literature (Diversity)
Studies in African American literature from the slave narrative to contemporary
writers. Content and focus to vary. 3 Cr. F, S.
An
immediate observation would be that current course descriptions do not clearly
relate to the current general education program by indicating what program
objectives they address. It would make
sense, as we shift to the criteria of the MTC program to tie the courses
clearly in their descriptions and syllabi to the program goals and
objectives. Although this will require
some paperwork, the MTC program system may well prove easier to work with from
an assessment point of view. However,
issues that will need thinking through will be the place of the department’s
diversity courses in the MTC based program, and how these courses should be
described relative to MTC objectives of Communication, Critical Thinking,
Global Awareness. Since MTC views
objectives exclusively, and SCSU views them inclusively—i.e., SDSU courses are
required to be designed to fulfill 3-5 objectives, while MTC courses are
required to be designed to fulfill 1 or possibly 2 objectives—the conversion
will require some attention.
Minnesota
The
higher education system of which
1) Written and Oral
Communication: Goal: To develop
writers and speakers who use the English language effectively and who read,
write, speak and listen critically. As a base, all students should complete
introductory communication requirements early in their collegiate studies.
Writing competency is an ongoing process to be reinforced through
writing-intensive courses and writing across the curriculum. Speaking and
listening skills need reinforcement through multiple opportunities for
interpersonal communication, public speaking, and discussion. Course Credit at
SCSU: 7.
2) Critical Thinking: Goal: To develop thinkers who are able
to unify factual, creative, rational, and value-sensitive modes of thought.
Critical thinking will be taught and used throughout the general education
curriculum in order to develop students’ awareness of their own thinking and
problem-solving procedures. To integrate new skills into their customary ways
of thinking, students must be actively engaged in practicing thinking skills
and applying them to open-ended problems.
Course Credit at SCSU: 3.
3) Natural Sciences: Goals: To improve students’
understanding of natural science principles and of the methods of scientific
inquiry, i.e., the ways in which scientists investigate natural science
phenomena. As a basis for lifelong learning, students need to know the
vocabulary of science and to realize that while a set of principles has been
developed through the work of previous scientists, ongoing scientific inquiry
and new knowledge will bring changes in some of the ways scientists view the
world. By studying the problems that engage today’s scientists, students learn
to appreciate the importance of science in their lives and to understand the
value of a scientific perspective. Students should be encouraged to study both
the biological and physical sciences.
Course Credit at SCSU: 6-8
4) Mathematical and Symbolical Systems:
Goal: To increase students’
knowledge about mathematical and logical modes of thinking. This will enable
students to appreciate the breadth of applications of mathematics, evaluate
arguments, and detect fallacious reasoning. Students will learn to apply
mathematics, logic, and/or statistics to help them make decisions in their
lives and careers.
5) History and the Behavioral Sciences:
Goal: To increase students’
knowledge of how historians and social and behavioral scientists discover,
describe, and explain the behaviors and interactions among individuals, groups,
institutions, events, and ideas. Such knowledge will better equip students to
understand themselves and the roles they play in addressing the issues facing
humanity. Course Credit at SCSU: 3.
6) The Humanities: Arts, Literature and
Philosophy: Goal: To expand
students’ knowledge of the human condition and human cultures. especially in
relation to behavior, ideas, and values expressed in works of human imagination
and thought. Through study in disciplines such as literature, philosophy, and
the fine arts, students will engage in critical analysis, form aesthetic
judgments, and develop an appreciation of the arts and humanities as
fundamental to the health and survival of any society. Students should have
experiences in both the arts and humanities. Course Credit at SCSU: 6 (3 in
Arts & 3 in Humanities)
7) Human Diversity: Goal: To increase students'
understanding of individual and group differences (e.g. race, gender, class)
and their knowledge of the traditions and values of various groups in the
8) Global Perspective: Goal: To increase students’
understanding of the growing interdependence of nations and peoples and develop
their ability to apply a comparative perspective to cross-cultural social,
economic and political experiences.
Course Credit at SCSU: 3.
9) Ethical and Civic
Responsibility: Goal: To develop students' capacity to identify, discuss, and
reflect upon the ethical dimensions of political, social, and personal life and
to understand the ways in which they can exercise responsible and productive
citizenship. While there are diverse views of social justice or the common good
in a pluralistic society, students should learn that responsible citizenship
requires them to develop skills to understand their own and other's positions,
be part of the free exchange of ideas, and function as public-minded citizens. Course Credit at SCSU: 3.
10) People and
the Environment: Goal: To
improve students' understanding of today's complex environmental challenges.
Students will examine the inter-relatedness of human society and the natural
environment. Knowledge of both bio-physical principles and socio-cultural
systems is the foundation for integrative and critical thinking about
environmental issues. Course Credit at
SCSU: 3.
The
Department’s humanities courses fit most obviously under Goal 6, the
humanities. The competencies for this
Goal are as follows:
Student
competencies: Students will be able to
a) Demonstrate
awareness of the scope and variety of works in the arts and humanities.
b) Understand those
works as expressions of individual and human values within an historical and
social context.
c) Respond critically
to works in the arts and humanities.
d) Engage in the
creative process or interpretive performance.
e) Articulate an
informed personal reaction to works in the arts and humanities.
However, these courses also relate to several
other goals: most obviously, 1, 2, 7, and 8
1.
Written and Oral Communication:
Student
competencies: Students will be able to
a) Understand/demonstrate
the writing and speaking processes through invention, organization, drafting,
revision, editing and presentation.
b) Participate
effectively in groups with emphasis on listening, critical and reflective
thinking, and responding.
c) Locate, evaluate,
and synthesize in a responsible manner material from diverse sources and points
of view.
d) Select appropriate
communication choices for specific audiences.
e) Construct logical
and coherent arguments.
f)
Use authority, point-of-view, and individual voice and style in
their writing and speaking.
g) Employ syntax and
usage appropriate to academic disciplines and the professional world.
2.
Critical Thinking:
Student
competencies: Students will be able to
a) Gather factual
information and apply it to a given problem in a manner that is relevant,
clear, comprehensive, and conscious of possible bias in the information
selected.
b) Imagine and seek
out a variety of possible goals, assumptions, interpretations, or perspectives
which can give alternative meanings or solutions to given situations or
problems.
c) Analyze the logical
connections among the facts, goals, and implicit assumptions relevant to a
problem or claim; generate and evaluate implications that follow from them.
d) Recognize and
articulate the value assumptions which underlie and affect decisions,
interpretations, analyses, and evaluations made by ourselves and others.
7.
Human Diversity:
Student
competencies: Students will be able to
a) Understand the
development of and the changing meanings of group identities in the
b) Demonstrate an
awareness of the individual and institutional dynamics of unequal power
relations between groups in contemporary society.
c) Analyze their own
attitudes, behaviors, concepts and beliefs regarding diversity, racism, and
bigotry.
d) Describe and
discuss the experience and contributions (political, social, economic, etc.) of
the many groups that shape American society and culture, in particular those
groups that have suffered discrimination and exclusion.
e) Demonstrate
communication skills necessary for living and working effectively in a society
with great population diversity.
8.
Global Perspective:
Student
competencies: Students will be able to
a) Describe and
analyze political, economic, and cultural elements which influence relations of
states and societies in their historical and contemporary dimensions.
b) Demonstrate
knowledge of cultural, social, religious and linguistic differences.
c) Analyze specific
international problems, illustrating the cultural, economic, and political
differences that affect their solution.
d) Understand the role
of a world citizen and the responsibility world citizens share for their common
global future
The
department is thus currently caught between two programs that involve some
significant differences in philosophy.
1.
Most importantly, the SCSU general education philosophy is
inclusive, while the MNSCU general education philosophy is exclusive. The SCSU philosophy has produced a system of
courses that provide students with program-wide experience in the program
competencies of writing, critical thinking, interdisciplinary awareness,
awareness of cultural differences and of values. The MTC tends—with minimal qualification—to
place responsibility for these competencies in single courses. The qualification involves communication,
under which cross-curriculum approaches are encouraged, and objectives
7-10. However, individual courses can
not claim to meet more than 2 areas.
2.
The MTC tends toward defining general education in terms of
content areas, rather than by general performance competencies. SCSU’s is different most particularly with
regard to the emphasis placed on interdisciplinarity—on the experience and
ability to use disciplines as ways of thinking and understanding.
As a result, the adoption
of the MTC involves a significant change in the substance of the general
education program. The MTC guidelines, however,
provide encouragement for thinking about the system curriculum as an
evolutionary process, and encourage institutions to continue to develop their
assessment and organization.
Summary observations from a review of syllabi
The syllabus set includes 4
syllabi for English 184, 1 for English 201 (with an additional syllabus for the
honors course with the same title, Honors 180), 3 for English 202, 2 for
English 203, and 1 each for English 215 and 216.
With
regard to the SCSU program criteria, the review indicates that all the classes
pay close attention to the basic academic skills of reading, writing, and
critical thinking, with some variation on writing resulting from class
size. Writing activities frequently
involve work with revising, and tend to involve some embedding of writing
assignments in journal activity and group oral presentation projects. Some courses involved research expectations
(which are given remarkably little attention in the MTC program in
general). Three of the MTC competencies
for the Humanities Goal seem to be based on communications performances of some
kind: the third requires critical response by the student to works, the fourth
calls for creative or interpretive performances (already appearing in several
of the syllabi), and the fifth calls for articulate and informed personal
reactions to works.
The
interdisciplinarity criterion has always been a problematic one in the history
of the general education program. In
these courses, the diversity courses necessarily involve integration of
literature into a socio-psychological and cultural context, but this dimension
isn’t particularly obvious in the other courses. It could well be that the MTC phrase “scope
and variety” would be more useful for us in that it could be met by genre
differences as well. Interdisciplinarity
is such an abstract concept that it tends to have relatively little meaning for
freshman and sophomore college students, and discipline-authority can be
somewhat problematic for the diversity areas as well.
The
Critical Thinking criterion in the SCSU program is already duplicated by the
critical reading/listening item in “Basic Academic Skills”, and this was
accepted as a way both of emphasizing the importance of this criterion, but
also of permitting courses that might otherwise have difficulty meeting 3
criteria to have an easier time doing so.
In the English/Humanities courses, critical thinking is omnipresent,
though in varied forms: in critiquing, analyzing meaning, developing effective
questions, applying terminology, finding examples, comparing and contrasting
styles, characters, plots, media, etc.
The
Values-Awareness criterion is omnipresent as well if we are permitted to take
aesthetic value as included. In general,
however, this criterion has tended to apply to moral values such as are
pervasive in diversity courses, and in “traditionalist” literature. Here again, the MTC competencies may have an
advantage of being clearer from an assessment perspective by focusing on values
in a historical and social context.
The
Multi-cultural awareness criterion has given us some difficulties in the past
with regard to the difference between what the term can mean as one of the five
criteria and as the foundation for the diversity courses. Diversity courses have necessarily fulfilled
the multicultural criterion, but what counts as an example of multicultural
awareness, say in a French or Spanish course, has not satisfied the diversity
definition of multiculturalism which has been anchored to non-western cultures. The phrasing in the MTC’s first two
competencies concerning “scope and variety”, and “values within an historical
and social context may adequately cover that issue for these courses, given the
fact that the diversity courses may also satisfy the diversity
requirement. In fact, we may want to
think about offering English 201 courses in World Literature that would satisfy
the Global Requirement as well.
The
MTC competencies are probably more useful from an assessment perspective in
that they make it easier to identify course activities to serve as indicators
for meeting the competencies: “Awareness
of scope and variety” can be demonstrated by varieties of genre, style, context
in the lists of readings. Comparative
assignments would provide further documentation. Awareness of literary works as expressions of
“individual and human values within an historical and social context” is easy
to document when lectures and videos are used flesh such contexts out for the
students, and such procedures are broadly seen in the syllabi set. Critical response to works is documentable by
paper assignments and other writing activities, and by reports of class
discussions. Most of the instructors for
the syllabi did not indicate an interest in requiring creative writing projects
or interpretive performances, but this competency is more appropriate to the
“Arts” side of this requirement.
Articulation of “an informed personal reaction to works” is again
documentable in terms of paper assignments.
Recommendation:
In
general, then, it would seem that the MTC program would offer opportunities for
easier and more effective assessment reporting, looking toward institutional
accreditation in the next five years.
The main issue we should address would be to make sure that our
diversity courses could function as diversity courses in MTC as well as
humanities courses. If diversity courses
in MTC are satisfied only by Racial Issues courses, we can undoubtedly have
English 215 and 216 placed in that category as well, but English 203, the
Gender Issues course will have a problematic status if the larger group of
diversity courses lose their special status.
Finally,
from the perspective of the English Department’s general commitment to general
education, we should act on the concern that MTC does not address researching
skills in a significant way. We might
also want to act on the observation that Foreign Language study is given
minimal shrift in humanities or Global areas.
General Education: First-year
writing/Composition
The
English Department has offered the following sections of first-year writing
over the past 3 years:
Term 191 Honors Subtotal ESL ESL/TA GrandTotal
Fall 99 65 8 73 25 14 98
Sp 00 59 8 67 19 8 86
Fall 00 60 6 66 23 13 89
Sp 01 55 7 62 15 8 77
Fall 01 50 6 56 16 11 72
Sp 02 41 4 45 11 7 56
Fall 02 54 6 60 13 9 73
Enrollment
demand continues to exceed the Department’s ability to teach first-year writing
to all entering students. A test-out is available, and its use could be
expanded beyond the very few who attempt it. SCSU is considering testing
composition skills for all entering students at orientation.
Of
present urgency is the administrative plan to increase class size for ENGL 191
from 25 to 28. The quality of writing instruction will suffer markedly, and not
least of the damage is to department/university reputation from running the largest
writing classes in the region. NCTE sets the professional standard of 20 as the
maximum class size for university-level writing courses.
At
Semester Conversion, the Department combined the two-quarter sequence 162 -163,
designed to move from composition to the research paper, to create a single General
Education CORE course ENGL 191: Introduction to Rhetorical and Analytical Writing:
“Analytical reading, writing, and critical reasoning in various rhetorical
situations. Argumentative research project comprising analysis and
interpretation of information, texts, and perspectives.”
The
191 Course Description, Position, Criteria, and Guidelines for Teachers can be
found in the Supplementary Materials. The following report on assessment of the
191 program demonstrates the Department’s process of adjusting course criteria
during the new course’s fourth year in order to better educate students.
English 191 Assessment Report
Background
Within the English Department, the General Education
and Composition Committee (GECC) was given the charge to develop a plan for
assessing English 191 during the Spring 2002 semester.
In order to facilitate
development of a plan, the Committee consulted with the university assessment
coordinator, Brenda Wentworth; re-visited the five-year 191 assessment plan
developed by David Sebberson, former Director of Composition; surveyed English
191 faculty; and shared a preliminary plan with the English Department. A
modified plan, revised according to faculty feedback and including a specific
timeline and budget for conducting the assessment, was submitted to Brenda
Wentworth. Upon approval of the plan and budget, members of the assessment team
were recruited. They included five faculty within the English Department and
one experienced teaching assistant.
Approach
The GECC decided that a
naturalistic approach—one that allows for themes to arise from the data—would
work best for getting the fullest sense of the English 191 experience.
Assessment team members would conduct a series of holistic readings and
analyses of student-produced texts and supporting contextual materials (i.e.,
the “cultural artifacts” of the writing classroom). Specific assessment
concerns or questions would emerge from these multiple readings. An elaborated
description of the five-stage assessment process and the team’s findings
follow.
Stage One – Collection of
Materials
Faculty teaching 191 in
Spring 2002 were directed to collect teaching documents (e.g., syllabi,
assignment sheets, discussion questions, miscellaneous handouts) and the
written work (e.g., pre-writing, drafts, revisions, peer responses, journal entries,
final papers) of three randomly assigned students for each section of English
191 that they taught during the semester. To ensure some degree of anonymity,
faculty deleted identifying information (e.g., name of instructor, section
number, student names) before submitting the materials.
For the Spring 2002 semester,
the department offered forty sections of English 191. Requested materials were
received for all forty sections, which is a response rate of 100 percent.
Stage Two – First
This stage of the process
involved a preliminary holistic reading of English 191 materials. Teaching
portfolios were read from 75 percent of the total number of English 191
sections offered during the Spring 2002 semester, or 30 sections. Assessment
team members each read five folios, each folio consisting of four folders: one
containing teaching materials and a separate folder for each of the three
randomly assigned students. Holistic readings were focused on the student work
within each folio in order to note patterns (and questions) related to Gen Ed
and 191 course objectives. The Committee considered patterns that emerged
within individual student folders; those that emerged between or across folders
within a particular section of English 191; and those that indicate
continuities between or across sections of English 191.
Stage Three – Preliminary Observations and Questions
During this stage of the process, team members met to
share observations. Several common patterns or themes could be identified that
cut across sections of English 191:
· Drafting and peer-response are common class
activities;
· Students are generally expected to move from
generating ideas to developing a polished, edited piece of writing;
· All sections are reading- and writing-intensive;
· Students are assigned various kinds of writing,
including narration, exposition, analysis, and argumentation;
· Students are required to conduct and use research to
support a point; and
· Students are practicing common methods of citing and
documenting sources.
Further discussion and analysis of initial
observations raised a variety of questions that could have been used to assess
specific learning outcomes. These questions focused on the kind and amount of
revision that students do; how well assigned reading and writing support stated
course objectives; how students perceive their rhetorical choices for various
writing tasks; how rhetorically versatile students are; and how well students
conduct and present research.
To facilitate the next stage of the assessment, the six-member assessment team agreed to develop a single specific question that would be used to frame a deeper, more narrowly focused second reading of student papers. This question would reflect values and concerns expressed not only in Stage-Three discussions, but also in published general education and English 191 course goals and in English faculty survey responses. It would also lead to findings that would inspire productive discussion about the current status and future development of our core course.
The team noted that during preliminary discussions,
team members regularly used research writing to illustrate their points. They
also noted that the “research paper” was a perceived emphasis of English 191
course goals and a key concern in faculty survey responses. Several faculty who
returned pre-assessment surveys expressed concern about the research-writing
component of the course. Researched writing was also highlighted in a previous
(1999) assessment report on the composition program, prepared by David Sebberson.
Mindful of the apparent general concern with research writing, the assessment
team decided that a question focusing attention on student research writing
would be most appropriate for this year’s assessment. The specific intention was to gather data
from student research projects in response to the following question:
What do the research papers suggest about students’
understanding of rhetorical and analytical writing?
While considering this general question, readers were encouraged to take into account various aspects of research writing, including writing process(es), revision, relationship of writer to subject matter, genre considerations, modes of development, audience and purpose, and identification and utilization of source material.
The
general data-gathering question reflected a consensus among assessment team
members that the research paper offers a particularly fruitful site for
considering the role of English 191, within both the department and SCSU’s
General Education program. The team noted, for example, that the researched
essay is almost always the culminating project in English 191; it is typically
presented to students in terms of engaging them in a complexly layered
“process” (e.g., identify and propose a topic, develop an annotated
bibliography, etc.); and a good deal of class time is allocated for development
of the research project. Team members recognized, too, that when the research
project is performed well, the written presentation often demonstrates command
of a broad array of rhetorical competencies. As much as (or more than) any
other assignment, the researched project challenges students to apply skills
learned in high school and asks them to extend those skills within new arenas
of inquiry and knowledge production. Finally, researched writing in English 191
is intended to support many Gen Ed Core Learning Outcomes. The assessment team
noted that preliminary observations corresponded particularly well with the
third general education core objective, which states, “Students will learn to
learn by employing various methods to obtain, classify, analyze, synthesize,
and apply knowledge.”
Stage
Four – Second
This stage of the process required pairs of assessment team members to conduct independent readings of nine randomly selected portfolios of student work (three portfolios for each pair of readers). Each reader collected data in response to the research question. Readers were asked to make general observations and then identify specific examples from student writing to illustrate or anchor interpretations.
Stage
Five – Data Analysis
This
final stage involved discussion of results from the deeper readings. Before a
general discussion of findings, pairs met alone to compare, synthesize, and
analyze independent readings. These small-group exchanges provided an
opportunity to not only share independent reader impressions of the same projects
but also to consider whether—and how—aspects of student writing might be
reasonably (and productively) tied back to different combinations of learning
goals and outcomes. Upon completion of these discussions, the full assessment
team reconvened to collaboratively evaluate the data. As part of that
evaluation, team members identified major areas in which English 191 students,
by and large, demonstrate proficiency (in terms of their achievement of
learning outcomes) and begin to struggle or show lack of achievement.
Findings
In terms of
their research papers, students are not demonstrating a high enough degree of
understanding of analytical and rhetorical writing. The general conclusion is
that students’ work shows strong evidence of attentiveness to and awareness of
formalistic aspects of writing (e.g., five-part argument structure, mechanics
of citation). However, also visible, and of particular concern to assessment
team members, is a wide ranging inconsistency with which English 191 students
demonstrate attention to and facility with higher-order writing issues (e.g.,
audience awareness, idea development, interpretation and analysis of source
material). Specifically, the following trends emerged during our analyses of
students’ researched writing projects:
1. Although students are generally successful at introducing
argumentative claims, they do not consistently support those claims with
developed arguments. Frequently, for example, claims are followed by lists of
facts that are left unanalyzed and unconnected (to other claims, to the
thesis).
2. Although students seem familiar with some persuasive strategies
(e.g., defining unfamiliar terms, using statistics), their repertoire of
strategies appears rather limited; more importantly, in numerous papers the
rhetorical choices students make as writers (including their selection of
source material) do not seem to be linked to a clear sense of audience or
purpose.
3. Although English 191 instructors frequently encourage students to
self-select or propose the topics for their research projects, the personal
investment that choosing topics is meant to foster seems undermined by
students’ apparent willingness to subordinate their own ideas to those
expressed in source material. As a result, the research papers often end up
reading like a compilation or assemblage of sources (e.g., stacked quotes,
etc.), and often a student’s stated purpose to persuade becomes buried—or
lost—in lengthy presentations of superficially relevant, though carefully
documented, information.
4. Although students dutifully participate in various activities
associated with process-oriented approaches to writing (e.g., pre-writing,
drafting, collaborating, peer responding), they appear to be overly dependent
on receiving individualized attention from instructors, through verbal and
written feedback, in order to develop the ideas in their papers. Of particular
concern is the frequency with which successive drafts of student papers suggest
that English 191 students do not so much revise their papers as add content to
them (often to the end of a previous draft). In addition, when re-visioning is
displayed in response to teacher feedback, the extent of that rethinking is
often limited to the specific area in the paper where a teacher comment
appears.
Implications
and Recommendations
This assessment suggests that English 191 students
need more practice developing arguments, considering argumentative strategies
and source material in terms of a particular audience and purpose, synthesizing
their own ideas with source material to develop extended arguments, and
revising longer texts. Toward these ends, the assessment team recommend the
following:
· Departmental reconsideration of
stated 191 course objectives to determine whether and how they could be revised
to highlight the rhetorical and analytical goals of the course (the GECC has
solicited ideas and is currently revising course description);
· Regular 191 teaching forums for
discussion of issues related to researched writing;
· More sharing of course
materials (the Director of Composition is developing a 191 file);
· Greater coordination of
available resources (library, Write Place, etc.) to ensure that students encounter
similar perspectives on researched writing for English 191.
The Write Place:
A Report on the
Director, Frankie L. Condon
Location: Riverview 118
“The key to enhancing learning and personal development
is not simply for faculty to teach more and better, but also to create
conditions that motivate and inspire students to devote time and energy to
educationally purposeful activities both inside and outside the classroom” (ACPA, 1994, p.1).
Summary
The Write Place is unable
under its current budget to meet existing demand for services. This situation
is caused by a constellation of factors including stagnant funding (the WP
budget has not been increased in eight years), a decrease in workstudy funds, rising
cost of student salaries, and increased demand for services. The Write Place is
well-positioned, institutionally, to assist the University in achieving
strategic goals and work plans for increasing student retention, improving
student success rates, and increasing diversity. This is so because the writing
center enjoys a high level of departmental support and utilization across the
disciplines as well as an established program of preparation for both graduate
and undergraduate tutors and a history of sustained anti-racism in hiring,
training, and tutoring practice.
This report and its
recommendations were endorsed by the English Department on
Summary of Recommendations
a. Increase funding to $15,000 a year for student
salaries and supplies and diversify funding sources to more accurately
represent the institutional position of the Write Place
b. Implement a regular schedule for increasing the Write
Place budget as the costs and demand for services grow
c. Increase the number of graduate assistantships
dedicated to the Write Place
d. Increase communication between the Write Place
Director and the Offices of Academic Affairs, Student Life and Development, and
the Department of English by organizing a shared reporting structure
The Context
History and Current Conditions
History
During the 1960’s and 1970’s one-on-one writing instruction
enjoyed a resurgence nation-wide. This shift in writing pedagogy is generally
understood to be one of the outgrowths of the civil rights movement and the
desegregation of higher education. The growth of writing centers through this
period is associated with the democratizing of education. The writing center at
In keeping with national trends, as scholarship deepened in Composition
and Rhetoric and scholars began to take up theoretical and practical issues
associated specifically with writing centers, the writing center at
The Write
Place enjoys support from across the University. In particular, faculty from
the English Department have worked very hard to maintain the academic and
disciplinary integrity of the writing center. In accordance with national
standards developed by the International Writing Centers Association and the
National Council of Teachers of English, the English Department dedicates a
probationary faculty line to the directorship of the Write Place (3/4 release
time for writing center administration). The English Department helps the
writing center with photocopying costs for handouts and flyers which are
distributed throughout the university. English Department faculty encourage
their students to use the writing center and refer excellent student-writers as
potential tutors. Graduate Assistants in the English and TESL masters programs
are assigned to the Write Place as tutors. The English Department faculty
continue to affirm the experience of tutoring and being tutored as important to
the development of a rigorous understanding of writing processes and production
for both graduate and undergraduate majors and for all students taking English
191.
The Write
Place also enjoys support from other disciplines and colleges. During the
2001-2002 academic year, Write Place tutors and the Director did over 50
presentations and workshops in classes across the University. During the fall
of 2002, we have already done over sixty presentations and workshops. In the
last three years, the tutors and directors have spoken to undergraduate and
graduate students in such disciplines as Ethnic Studies, Democratic
Citizenship, Human Relations, Music History, Aviation, Computer Engineering,
Criminal Justice, Psychology, Business Law, and Information Media to name only
a few.
In addition
to working with student writers, the Write Place has been a hub of intellectual
and creative production. The
The Write Place Budget
The Write Place has
essentially three funding sources. The faculty line for a director is funded by
the
The Write Place doubles as an open lab. Computers and technical support are provided by LRTS and funded by student fees.
|
Funding Source |
Nature of Funding |
Dollar Value of
Funding |
|
English Department (CFAH) |
One probationary faculty line |
---------------------- |
|
English Department (CFAH) |
Supplies |
500 approximate |
|
Academic Affairs |
Undergraduate student salaries |
4800 |
|
Academic Affairs |
Supplies |
230 |
|
Academic Affairs |
One Graduate Assistantship |
7000 |
|
Office of Graduate Studies |
Two graduate assistantships |
14,000 |
|
Total |
|
26,530 |
The writing center serves
approximately 4000 students a year or
25% of the student population of the University. While, at first glance, the distribution of
resources to the Write Place may seem generous, an analysis of the nature and
extent of the work of the writing center reveals significant shortfalls.
For example, staffing to
accommodate current need requires 2050 tutoring hours per semester. Graduate
Assistantship funding provides for 1008 tutoring hours a semester (based on a
twenty hour a week assistantship). Undergraduate tutors make up the difference
in hours. Current need suggests undergraduate tutoring hours totaling 1042. The
current Write Place budget, based on the $7.50 hourly wage for student workers,
enables the purchase of only 320 hours each semester. In the past this
shortfall has been addressed by the use of workstudy hours. This system depends
on a few variables, however. Either students who qualify for workstudy need to
demonstrate sufficient interest in tutoring to take English 352, the course that
prepares undergraduate tutors for work in the writing center or trained tutors
need to qualify for workstudy.
Several factors have
converged to form a budget crisis for the Write Place. The hourly wage for
undergraduate student workers has increased while the writing center budget has
remained the same The writing center budget has not been increased in eight
years. Because of cuts to workstudy funding and perhaps because of changing
demographics in the student body, fewer undergraduate students qualify for
workstudy. The Write Place can no longer provide enough tutoring to meet
existing student demand. Further, as support for the Write Place grows among
faculty outside of the College of Fine Arts and Humanities (evidenced by
increasing demand for presentations and workshops), it is likely that demand
will increase over time rather than decrease. The Write Place is not in a
position to meet increasing demand.
The Effects of Insufficient
Funding
The writing center’s budget
crisis is manifesting in a variety of ways.
·
We
have been forced to cut the number of hours we are open and to reduce the
number of tutors on staff at any given time.
·
In an effort to
help the English Department with its budget problems, we are making fewer
copies including fewer flyers advertising the Write Place and fewer handouts
for student-writers.
·
While we plan to
publish Praxis again this semester,
we will be forced to lower our production values in order to reduce the cost of
publication.
·
We are organizing
fewer associated events and activities because of our reduced hours and
increased workload. This year we will
host only one reading and no faculty workshops.
·
Although the
Write Place has benefited significantly from its relationship with LRTS, we
have significant need for at least one computer and printer that are not
attached to the open lab. The one
computer we have with which to do administrative work is supplied by student echnology fees and must, in the first
instance, be available to student writers. Our confidentiality is compromised
by this arrangment. That we dedicate only one computer to administrative
purposes slows our administration and scheduling and hampers our ability to
maintain even the most modest bureaucratic needs. We need desperately to update
databases and to purchase scheduling and data collection software.
·
Most seriously we
are unable to meet the current demand by students for peer tutoring in writing.
Between October 17 and November 17st we turned away 220 SCSU
students because there were no tutors available to work with them or we were
closed at times when they were available for to be tutored. Before October 17
we were not tracking students turned away.
We are concerned that at a
historical moment when the MNSCU system in general and SCSU in particular are
forced to ask students to pay more for a university education and for
associated goods and services that we are providing them with less academic
support. We are also concerned that an existing university program which has
for thirty years been doing the very work called for in both the President’s
and Chancellor’s work plan is now and has been for several years significantly
underfunded.
Workable Solutions
There are a range of ways
to address the Write Place’s budget crisis. Ultimately, we expect that some
combination of the following ideas would enable us to continue to do the work
of the writing center and to grow additional initiatives at a moderate pace.
1. Academic Affairs and Student Life and Development work
together to cover the current $5437.50 shortfall in funding for student workers
and increase funding for supplies, releasing the English Department from its
responsibility to provide photocopying for the Write Place and providing enough
funding for the Write Place to publish its newsletter and to continue to offer
readings and workshops for students and faculty. The total cash budget (student salaries and
supplies) for the Write Place would increase to 15,000. Academic Affairs
purchases a computer, printer, and scheduling software for the Write Place.
Academic Affairs and Student Support Services share the cost of periodic
upgrades.
Rationale: Making up the
shortfall would allow us to meet current student need. An administrative
computer and associated software would allow us to streamline data collectionl,
scheduling, and facilitate writing center publishing projects. There is
significant overlap between Student Life and Development and Academic Affairs
support of academic support services. For example, Student Life and Development
supports and oversees the
2. Integrate the writing center more thoroughly into the
undergraduate English major and the Graduate Program in English. Make ENGL 352
a requirement for students in the rhetoric and writing major and ENGL 552
required for MA students with a
Composition and Rhetoric emphasis.
Develop a writing center internship for both graduates and
undergraduates with a 452/552 prerequisite so that Mas and advanced
undergraduates could tutor for credit rather than as a paid position, supplementing
their professional development.
Rationale: Composition
theory and writing center theory increasingly inform the shape and depth of
scholarship in college English. Nationally, associate directorships and
professional tutoring in research one institutions and directorships in
community and technical colleges are a growing professional opportunity for
students graduating with undergraduate and masters degrees with a writing
center and composition emphasis. Composition theory and writing center theory
inform one another. Composition teachers with writing center experience often
report feeling able to establish more rich and textured relationships with
student writers both in the classroom and in conferences.
Note: Work on the
curricular relationship of the writing center courses to the English
Department’s programs has begun. In November of 2002 the English Department
charged its Curriculum and Scheduling Committee and Graduate Steering Committee
to work with the Write Place Director to examine and revise course descriptions
and numbering for writing center pedagogy courses and to develop proposals for
more effective curricular integration.
3. Office of Graduate Studies and Academic Affairs each
contribute one more GAship to the Write Place.
Rationale: Several
departments have expressed interest in developing graduate level, discipline
specific tutoring in writing. Additional Gaships would provide additional tutor
hours for growing the Write Place and might enable us to diversify our staff by
offering GA positions to a few graduate students from other departments and
colleges.
4. Allow qualified faculty with writing center experience
work in the Write Place as part of their load. In the English Department such
faculty include Tim Fountaine, Glen Davis, Cindy Moore, Bob Inkster, and Judy
Kilborn.
Rationale: Such faculty
would assist in staffing the Center and would make very meaningful
contributions to the intellectual lives of individual students by working with
them one on one on writing projects. At least a few of the faculty in the above
list are eager to have such an opportunity. It is important to note that
faculty working in the Center will need to have a scholarly background in
Composition and/or
5. Begin generating an FTE revenue stream by offering 1
credit courses through the writing center for student writers striving for
excellence (writer meets with tutor one hour a week for the semester; offer a
one credit course for graduate students working on Masters theses (writer meets
with graduate or faculty tutor one hour a week for a semester).; offer a one
credit course for writers in writing intensive core courses (writer meets with
peer tutor for one hour a week for a semester).
Rationale: There are some
philosophical problems with this approach. Historically, writing centers have
prized the consensual relationship between peer tutors and writers and our
freedom from the institutional responsibility of evaluating and judging student
writing. However, so long as this approach is not allowed to generate into a
method of disciplining struggling writers, but stands as an elective, the
degree of compromise can be minimized. This solution is only appropriate if the
income generated by FTE’s helps to fund the Write Place.
Future Directions: What We
Would Like to Be and Do
Recent writing center scholarship explores the
relationship between the kinds of sustained conversations about intellectual
engagement and writing in the Academy that writing centers promote and practice
and student excellence. This scholarship demonstrates not only the relationship
between student access to and use of writing centers and retention and success
rates, but also between such conversation and heightened student participation
in the intellectual life of institutions. That is, students who use writing
centers and the tutors who work in them are more likely to conceive of
themselves and to act as producers of knowledge in a community of
teacher/learners.
Historically, writing centers have acted as the
institutional homes of writing across the curriculum programs and writing
intensive programs. Writing centers have provided training and support to
faculty across the disciplines working in such programs as well as to students
enrolled in them. Innovative relationships between writing centers and first
year experience programs are burgeoning nationwide. Such initiatives are
characterized by de-centralizing writing centers -- opening writing centers in
residence halls and libraries to increase access, training RA’s as writing
tutors, developing writing fellows programs as an integral component of first
year experience programs, and linking high schools with regional universities
to name a few. An increasing number of writing center scholar/teachers are
exploring the ways in which writing centers can support and sustain
multicultural and anti-racism initiatives by supporting in meaningful ways the
intellectual lives of students of color, non-traditional students, students for
whom English is a second language, and students from working class families.
I believe, that is, that the Write Place is
institutionally, intellectually, and pedagogically well positioned to make
meaningful contributions to enacting
·
Satellite
Centers: identify and prepare students from a wide range of disciplines to work
as tutors in College writing centers so that the College of Social Sciences,
The College of Education, etc. would house writing centers staffed by
undergraduate peer tutors familiar with and fluent in the writing practices and
disciplinary expectations of particular fields of study. Additionally,
satellite centers might be established in residence halls, in the student union,
and or in
·
Writing
Fellows Program: provide intensive preparation for expert student writers to
act as writers-in-residence for particular courses. Writing Fellows could be
attached to seminar sessions of a first-year experience program; could lead
study, group-work, and writing sessions attached to large lecture courses
(giving students in such courses the opportunity for small group discussion,
writing to explore complex concepts and subject matter in small groups with a
trained facilitator); could work collaboratively with teachers of writing
intensive courses across the disciplines providing in-class support for
student-writers and dedicated tutoring in the Write Place outside of class.
·
Presidential
Scholars Program or Honors Fellows: Predicated on a model developed at
·
Faculty
Development Initiative: developing and offering regular workshops for faculty
teaching in a first year experience program and writing intensive core courses
through the writing center as well as sponsoring faculty discussion groups
about writing across the disciplines and writing to learn. Such a program could
provide preparation and support to new faculty.