Writing Intensive and Writing-across-the-Core
Recommendations from Faculty Implementation Group
20 November 2007
Background
Senate Legislation:
“That the Faculty Senate approves designating
the Inquiry Seminars and the Capstone Courses as writing intensive courses, as
well as expectations for writing in all core courses (writing-across-the-core)
will be developed by a faculty implementation group.”
[approved by the Faculty Senate, Dec. 5, 2005]
The Faculty Implementation Group:
Aileen Buslig
(Social Sciences)
Mark Covey (Mathematics and
Lab Sciences)
Nicole Garcia (Languages)
Roy Hammerling
(Religion)
David Sprunger
(Writing-in-the-Core Consultant) *
Jonathan Steinwand
(Arts)
Sonja Wentling
(Humanities)
* Committee chair
Charge and Process:
See the Working Group charge
from Curriculum Coordinating Committee, dated 25 April 2007 (appended). The implementation group has researched
programs and best practices at other institutions, assessed current practice at
Concordia, formulated proposals, presented the proposals to Core Committee and
to Library Faculty, and revised proposals.
We were not able to address the Capstone because the course has not yet
been developed; nor have we presented our recommendations to the faculty at
large because the recommendations remain open until the Capstone issue is
resolved. Because the CCC charge asked
for a recommendation by 20 November 2007, the Implementation Group offers the
following recommendations on that date.
Writing Intensive
Recommendations
Inquiry Seminar:
A Writing-Intensive Inquiry
Seminar is one in which students
1. Write a research paper
2. Develop information literacy and research competencies
3. Produce at least 15 pages of polished writing spread across multiple writing assignments
4. Practice generative writing as a way of learning
5. Practice a writing process, either 1) using a draft-revision cycle; or 2) breaking a large assignment into graded stages
Capstone:
As the capstone course is
developed, we recommend that it address in its conception similar standards for
Writing Intensity: a substantial writing assignment, information literacy, and
attention to the writing process.
Discussion:
The definition of research
paper remains ambiguous because we imagine instructors from different
disciplines will adapt the research paper requirement in different ways. In general, however, a research paper would
be a thesis-driven argument of 8-12 pages based on a range of sources that are
considered scholarly and appropriate by the standards of the library’s
information literacy instruction.
Further definition and
discussion of generative and polished writing can be found in the first-year
program’s writing handbook, Writing to
Influence the Affairs of the World.
Writing-across-the-Core
Recommendation
We recommend approaching
Writing-across-the-Core in a way that parallels the
Becoming-Responsibly-Engaged-with-the-World initiative. Three components will work together to
increase writing awareness and practice in Core classes:
1. Statements on Writing:
Each department or program
will produce a one-page statement that
• explains the range of writing used in the discipline or program
• describes writing expectations for under-graduates in the discipline or program
• identifies how students in the department develop the skills to meet those writing expectations (specific courses that address writing, sequences of courses, kinds of recurrent assignments, and so forth)
2. Core Applications:
As they are proposed
initially and/or as they are renewed on a seven-year cycle, applications for
Core courses will address an item like this:
Explain how this course contributes
to the objectives identified in your department’s or program’s statement on
writing.
3. Core Assessment:
Assessment of the Core will
include students’ continual demonstration of and reflection on the Core’s
writing goals.
Discussion:
This recommended approach
will make the Core’s treatment of Writing across the Core parallel to how the
Core is handling the BREW theme.
Departmental statements will
serve three purposes: 1) They will give the Core Committee a reference point as
it reads proposals; 2) They will instigate departmental discussions about
departmental expectations; 3) They will foster a Writing-in-the-Disciplines
climate to rival best practices that we found at other institutions. Depending on the timeline, the
Writing-across-the-Core consultant could meet departments interested in a
sounding board/facilitator for discussions of writing. The Core Committee would prefer that these
statements be about a page long and could be informal bulleted lists of key
points.
By adding a discussion of
writing to the Core application form, the Core committee will encourage faculty
to be more intentional about writing in their classes and about foregrounding
writing in their syllabi and in the teaching of the courses. Continued faculty development will support
this endeavor.
The recommended approach may
strike some as overly passive, especially compared to the more active proposal
presented to the Core Committee earlier in the fall. Acute student assessment will be key to making sure that the new curriculum actively
highlights, promotes, and develops student writing. Monitoring student perceptions of writing in
the Core and continually assessing student writing will let us see how these initiatives
make a difference.
Many on the implementation
group favored a stronger approach, adapting the model used elsewhere of 1)
awarding writing-intensive status to courses that met some specific content
and/or pedagogy criteria; and 2) requiring that students take a certain number
of these courses while completing Core requirements. Such an approach would treat
writing-across-the-core in a way that is parallel to how the Core handles the
Perspectives designation. In the end,
however, this approach was set aside primarily for two reasons. Quantifying classes with a separate writing
designation seemed to abdicate the responsibility of the entire Core to address
writing. The result would be more of a
Writing-in-the-Core rather than Writing-across-the Core
approach. In addition, the Core Committee
felt that adding specific course requirements for graduation would require
separate Senate legislation.
Implementing Writing in the Core Curriculum
Proposed by the Curriculum
Coordinating Committee
Faculty Senate Legislation:
Implementation of motion
#6: That the Faculty Senate approves
designating the Inquiry Seminars and the Capstone Courses as writing intensive
courses, as well as expectations for writing in all core courses (writing-across-the-core)
will be developed by a faculty implementation group.” [approved by the
Faculty Senate, Dec. 5, 2005]
Process:
The faculty implementation
group will conduct research on “best practices” in core curriculum writing programs,
gather insights from Concordia faculty regarding their experience with writing
in the core curriculum and disciplines, and develop a model for writing in
Concordia’s Core Curriculum.
The Faculty Implementation
Group:
The faculty implementation group
will consist of eight members:
A faculty member representing the Arts
A faculty member representing the Humanities
A faculty member representing the Social Sciences
A faculty member representing Religion
A faculty member representing the Sciences
A faculty member representing Mathematics
A faculty member representing Languages
The Writing in the Core Consultant (who will serve as
chair)
The division chairs will
select faculty (they may use the selection process of their choice). Ideally, the faculty members will have
experience in teaching in departmental research seminars and/or inquiry
seminars. It would be particularly
helpful to include faculty who are knowledgeable about models or best practices
associated with writing in the core curriculum and/or the disciplines. Members of the faculty implementation group
will receive compensation for their summer work.
Timeline:
Members of the faculty
implementation group will be named as soon as possible, but no later than May
15. The expectation is that the faculty
implementation group will conduct research in the best practices of writing in
core curriculum programs at other institutions, solicit insights from Concordia
faculty with respect to their experience in teaching writing in the Core and their
disciplines, and discuss their preliminary findings electronically. Beginning in the fall semester, 2007, the
faculty implementation group will begin meeting, in person, hold faculty forums
to solicit faculty responses, and develop a model for writing in the Core. The model for writing in the core will be
announced no later than November 20, 2007.
Thereafter, the Curriculum and Core Curriculum Committees will begin
incorporating the model into their applications for new courses and Core
designations. Faculty development
opportunities will be designed to inform faculty of the writing in the Core
expectations and best practices.