WAC Committee Minutes
September 23, 2010

Present: David Steege, Ron Cronovich, Ed Montanero, Jean Preston, Mark Snavely, Rick Matthews

1. The minutes from the meeting on April 18th were approved

2. Course Proposals

MGMT 4xx Security and Portfolio Analysis, Joseph Wall: approved (committee asked for revisions, however, this course had already been submitted and eventually approved last year, after revisions)

POLS 340 Chinese Politics, Jonathan Marshall, approved

MUS/SOC 271 Cultural Expressions of American Music Theatre, Amy Haines and Mathew Somlai, approved

POLS 303 Women of Africa, Ellen Hauser, approved

MLAN 311 Interprétation de textes écrits en Français, Pacal Rollet, approved

BIOL 220 Conservation Biology, Peggy Huset-Duros, revise and resubmit

CRMJ 226 Criminology, Kathryn Johnson, approved

3. Summary of the report on WAC workshops, 2010

Meeting adjourned at 4:00

WAC Meeting Agenda
Monday April 12, 2010, CC 203 12:15pm-1:00pm

Attendance:
Steege, Preston, Matthews, Cassidy, Renaud, Hannah, Snavely, Montenarro, Short

I. Approval of minutes from March 18th: yes

https://wac.carthage.edu/)

II. Course Proposals:

Bob Maleske: Psychology Senior Seminar 400: passed

III. WAC Workshops, SP 2010: Adult education.

So far, 4 sessions are planned for 6 people teaching in adult education. Adjuncts are welcome. Jean starts one session tonight.

IV. Fall 2010 Workshops:

Ideas need to be submitted to Rick. New and experienced faculty are encouraged to participate. Current outline is found in last meeting notes.

V. WAC Assessment update:

Instructors are needed to pilot the forms and we need volunteers to test the forms. Volunteers to this point are: Renaud: Race, Ethnicity and Gender, Cassidy: master thesis in art, Snavely: Real Analysis; Short and Preston: Western Heritage. Rick will talk to Ben about more Heritage volunteers. Form has been updated. The old version is attached to these minutes.

VI. Unfinished Business:

Status of update form: There is a proposal form and renewing button for an existing course. Choose the pull down menu. Nothing to retype unless the course has been changed; one can edit what is needed and add a current course syllabus. Stagger renewals beginning fall 2010 for the fall of 2011 (a year in advance). Procedure will be brought to the dept. chair’s committee. Committee has adopted this procedure.

Writing manual will be customized and CSS will distribute. Some CSS skills will be used in the customizing, Plagiarism, Honor pledge, top 10 common student errors, Carthage Cover customized (can’t sell back), writing fellows will be doing presentations for CSS classes, instructor comments, writing intensive requirements.

Jean will work with faculty to get them to buy in and use the manual in their classes. She is working with adult education to get the manual to be required in that program as well.

Dept. Chairs: Manual is the go-to tool in this culture for writing.

VII. New Business:

Renaud: Writing assessment is slow to get restarted. Not everyone on the committee is responding. April 28th is the meeting. Western Heritage is different now. How do we assess Heritage given the prompt and the changes in the textual curriculum? Criteria: divisions, by interest, committee that has its own identity (not a task force). Dana should get involved.

A faculty team should be formed. Dana will be a key person to help.

CLA data: Data was already collected with seniors by previous CADRE (Dan Miller and Christine Rener). Nothing has been done with results. WAFT may want to do something with this information.

New meeting is Tues. May _____ at 8:15am.

WAC Assessment Plan (previous document)
WAC will focus on the assessment of the program itself to ensure that the goals of WAC are being met.
Goals for WAC (per Curriculum Integration Initiative)
a. The course must use writing to promote the learning of course materials. Instructors assign formal and informal writing, both in class and out, to increase students’ understanding of course material as well as improve writing skills.
b. The course provides interaction between the instructor and students while students do assigned writing; in effect, the instructor acts as an expert and the student as an apprentice in a community of writers. Types of interaction will vary. For example, a professor who requires the completion of one long essay may review sections of the essay, write comments on drafts, and be available for conferences. The professor who requires several short papers may demonstrate techniques for drafting and revising in the classroom, give students guidance on the composition of papers, and consult with students after the complete their papers.
c. Writing contributes significantly to each student’s course grade. Writing assignments must make up at least [25%-40%, depending on the decision of the WAC Oversight Committee] of each student’s course grade. If not, the course syllabus must state that students must satisfactorily complete all writing assignments to pass with a “D” or better.
d. The course requires students to do a substantial amount of writing—a minimum of 4,000 words or about 16 pages. This may include informal writing. Depending on the course content, students may write analytic essays, critical reviews, journals, lab reports, research reports or reaction papers, etc.
e. To allow for meaningful professor-student interaction on each student’s writing, the class size is restricted to 22 students.

Criteria A, C, D, and E are assessed in the course proposal process in the sense that each proposed WI course meets the criteria before it is offered. We have detailed records on the number of courses offered, when they were offered, new course proposals, and faculty who are eligible to teach WI courses.
Criteria B could be assessed through a student evaluation at the end of the semester. Questions about 1) types of feedback, 2) quality of the feedback, 3) quantity of the feedback and whether it was helpful in revising. Other questions: How does this course compare to other non-WI courses in terms of learning the subject matter? i.e., did the writing assignments help you learn the subject matter better than courses that are non-WI? How does the amount of writing in this course compare to other, non-WI courses you’ve taken? If you have taken other WI courses, how does this one compare? Have these courses prepared you well for this one? Self- assessment: are you a better writer after taking this course?
Faculty should be surveyed also. Workload as compared to non-WI course, whether the writing assignments facilitated the learning of course content, perceptions of improvement in student writing (examples?). Use writing assignments in non-WI courses? How the writing assignments in the class are different? Kinds of feedback work best. Help from WAC, or ways to improve WAC, or provide more support? How many times taught course as WI?
Other WAC Program Concerns:
Certification of WI faculty
Approval of WI courses
Oversight to ensure enough courses are being offered

Student Outcomes:
In assessing student outcomes, WATF may want to look at the following:
1. Departments—should work with them to consider Writing Assessment in the major (what kinds of goals are important in their discourse community? Courses sequential? Important skills?
2. Western Heritage: WH has writing outcomes, how are they assessing them?
3. Global assessment of general writing competency (seniors with CADRE?)
General student outcomes for WI courses include the following:
a. Increase student success in writing in all instructional areas;
b. Increase student learning through the use of frequent writing;
c. Investigate attitudes and anxieties about writing;
d. Insure student-instructor interaction about writing beyond the first year of college;
e. Recognize excellence in student writing.

Instructors will also be able to determine course-specific student outcomes for WI courses in consultation with the WAC Oversight Committee.

Faculty Survey:
Name (optional):_____________________________________________
Number of years teaching WI courses?____________________
Number of WI courses taught?______________________________
Is this course required for your major?____________________

1. What writing goals and objectives did you have for this course?
2. Of the criteria you use to evaluate student writing, which are the most important to you?
3. What kinds of writing assistance (i.e., assignment sheets, rubrics, teacher and/or peer feedback, writing center consultations, etc.) did your students receive in this class? Which ones do you think were most effective, and why?
4. Do you use writing assignments in your other, non-WI courses? If so, how is the teaching of writing in those classes similar or different from your WI courses?
5. Compared to a typical non-WI course you teach, how much more labor intensive is this one for you?
6. Do you believe that the writing assignments in your class help students learn course material more effectively? If so, can you give an example?
7. What is your overall assessment of student strengths and weaknesses at the beginning of this class?
8. Are there particular areas of writing where you have seen student improvement in this class? (please give examples)
9. Is there anything you would like to see from WAC to assist in your efforts to teach WI courses?
10. Other comments, questions or concerns:

Student survey:
What year are you? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
What is/are your major(s)?_______________, _____________________
Is this course required for your major? Yes, No
How many other WI courses have you taken at Carthage?_____________
Do you feel confident there are enough WI courses for you to take to meet your WI requirement for graduation? Yes, No

1. Compared to other non-WI courses, did the writing you did in this course help you learn course content better? (Please give an example if possible).
2. Compared to other non-WI courses, how much more writing did you do in this course? Were the types of writing assignments different? How so?
3. What types of feedback on your writing were you given in this course (i.e., comments from your professor, peer review, etc.)
4. Of these types of feedback, which were the most helpful to you in improving your writing?
5. If you have taken other WI courses prior to taking this one, in what ways did that course prepare you to write well in this one?
6. In what ways did your writing improve from taking this course? (e.g., learned how to cite properly, improved skills in editing, revising or organization).
7. Other comments, questions, or concerns about writing you would like to share with the Writing Across the Curriculum Committee:

WAC Meeting Minutes:

Steege, Snavely, Matthews, Hannah, Montenarro, Cassidy, Cronovich, Short, Preston, Keller

Thursday, March 18th, 8:10 a.m. CC 203

I. Approval of minutes from February 15th

https://wac.carthage.edu/)

II. Course Proposals:

a. Marianne Unger (revised): ALASKAN NATIVES: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PATTERNS AND TRENDS:

A few minor revisions: passed

b. Sandy Bisciglia: Understandings of Religion

Religion 100: passed

III. WAC Workshops, 2010: August 30, Monday (half day Jean, new to writing pm) Tuesday (parallel sessions) and Wednesday (parallel sessions) (T,W full day sessions morning and afternoon). Barbara Walvoord coming through CADRE but presenting one session for WAC: effective grading: Wed. afternoon open to everyone on grading and assessment. Topic for parallel sessions so far: evaluation with rubrics, feedback, restructuring a writing intensive class, writing center and using the writing manual (Rules for Writers in customized format) in classes, etc.

WATF: Chris Renaud is working on student assessment.

IV. Unfinished Business:

Barbara Walvoord’s books:

Assessment: Clear and Simple.

Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College

http://books.google.com/books?id=EJxy06yX_NoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=barbara+walvoord&source=bl&ots=Ui__raqbFz&sig=4vs5iWmLcqqWOiECAcNTvfnocNI&hl=en&ei=XimiS_r9K5KyNq2CvMcI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

V. New Business: Next meeting is April 12, Monday, at 12:10pm CC203

WAC Meeting Minutes: Cassidy, Hanna, Short, Steege, Snavely, Matthews, Preston, Renaud
Monday, February 15th 2010
I. Approval of minutes from December 8th

https://wac.carthage.edu/)

II. Course Proposals:
a. Marianne Unger
Questions about counting pre-writing activities as a group project: needs to be pre-writing. Doesn’t feed into final paper ideas. Rick will contact the instructor for help on improvements.

III. WAC Assessment
See document attachment: Goals, criteria, WATF, a couple of possible samples (qualitative samples)

• Not feasible to do with all of the courses: choosing samples

• 3 Areas:
Program goals being met: WAC committee
Student outcome goals: WATF
Dept. program goals will come in the future

• Individual assessments of our students: Our writing assessment rubric
Curriculum goals for the program

• How are you assessing whether this writing is helping students or not?
• Volunteer a test run on the survey for a few classes; reflection on the questions.

IV. Unfinished Business
• Update questions for current proposals:
Need a reasonable update procedure. Questions to consider: has WI help to change the way you are teaching this class?
• May need another meeting time: Ron Cronovich can’t come at this time
• New system can help us to cross check eligible faculty.

WAC Assessment Plan
WAC will focus on the assessment of the program itself to ensure that the goals of WAC are being met.
Goals for WAC (per Curriculum Integration Initiative)
a. The course must use writing to promote the learning of course materials. Instructors assign formal and informal writing, both in class and out, to increase students’ understanding of course material as well as improve writing skills.
b. The course provides interaction between the instructor and students while students do assigned writing; in effect, the instructor acts as an expert and the student as an apprentice in a community of writers. Types of interaction will vary. For example, a professor who requires the completion of one long essay may review sections of the essay, write comments on drafts, and be available for conferences. The professor who requires several short papers may demonstrate techniques for drafting and revising in the classroom, give students guidance on the composition of papers, and consult with students after the complete their papers.
c. Writing contributes significantly to each student’s course grade. Writing assignments must make up at least [25%-40%, depending on the decision of the WAC Oversight Committee] of each student’s course grade. If not, the course syllabus must state that students must satisfactorily complete all writing assignments to pass with a “D” or better.
d. The course requires students to do a substantial amount of writing—a minimum of 4,000 words or about 16 pages. This may include informal writing. Depending on the course content, students may write analytic essays, critical reviews, journals, lab reports, research reports or reaction papers, etc.
e. To allow for meaningful professor-student interaction on each student’s writing, the class size is restricted to 22 students.

Criteria A, C, D, and E are assessed in the course proposal process in the sense that each proposed WI course meets the criteria before it is offered. We have detailed records on the number of courses offered, when they were offered, new course proposals, and faculty who are eligible to teach WI courses.
Criteria B could be assessed through a student evaluation at the end of the semester. Questions about 1) types of feedback, 2) quality of the feedback, 3) quantity of the feedback and whether it was helpful in revising. Other questions: How does this course compare to other non-WI courses in terms of learning the subject matter? i.e., did the writing assignments help you learn the subject matter better than courses that are non-WI? How does the amount of writing in this course compare to other, non-WI courses you’ve taken? If you have taken other WI courses, how does this one compare? Have these courses prepared you well for this one? Self- assessment: are you a better writer after taking this course?
Faculty should be surveyed also. Workload as compared to non-WI course, whether the writing assignments facilitated the learning of course content, perceptions of improvement in student writing (examples?). Use writing assignments in non-WI courses? How the writing assignments in the class are different? Kinds of feedback work best. Help from WAC, or ways to improve WAC, or provide more support? How many times taught course as WI?
Other WAC Program Concerns:
Certification of WI faculty
Approval of WI courses
Oversight to ensure enough courses are being offered

Student Outcomes:
In assessing student outcomes, WATF may want to look at the following:
1. Departments—should work with them to consider Writing Assessment in the major (what kinds of goals are important in their discourse community? Courses sequential? Important skills?
2. Western Heritage: WH has writing outcomes, how are they assessing them?
3. Global assessment of general writing competency (seniors with CADRE?)
General student outcomes for WI courses include the following:
a. Increase student success in writing in all instructional areas;
b. Increase student learning through the use of frequent writing;
c. Investigate attitudes and anxieties about writing;
d. Insure student-instructor interaction about writing beyond the first year of college;
e. Recognize excellence in student writing.

Instructors will also be able to determine course-specific student outcomes for WI courses in consultation with the WAC Oversight Committee.

Faculty Survey:
Name (optional):_____________________________________________
Number of years teaching WI courses?____________________
Number of WI courses taught?______________________________
Is this course required for your major?____________________

1. What writing goals and objectives did you have for this course?
2. Of the criteria you use to evaluate student writing, which are the most important to you?
3. What kinds of writing assistance (i.e., assignment sheets, rubrics, teacher and/or peer feedback, writing center consultations, etc.) did your students receive in this class? Which ones do you think were most effective, and why?
4. Do you use writing assignments in your other, non-WI courses? If so, how is the teaching of writing in those classes similar or different from your WI courses?
5. Compared to a typical non-WI course you teach, how much more labor intensive is this one for you?
6. Do you believe that the writing assignments in your class help students learn course material more effectively? If so, can you give an example?
7. What is your overall assessment of student strengths and weaknesses at the beginning of this class?
8. Are there particular areas of writing where you have seen student improvement in this class? (please give examples)
9. Is there anything you would like to see from WAC to assist in your efforts to teach WI courses?
10. Other comments, questions or concerns:

Student survey:
What year are you? Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior
What is/are your major(s)?_______________, _____________________
Is this course required for your major? Yes, No
How many other WI courses have you taken at Carthage?_____________
Do you feel confident there are enough WI courses for you to take to meet your WI requirement for graduation? Yes, No

1. Compared to other non-WI courses, did the writing you did in this course help you learn course content better? (Please give an example if possible).
2. Compared to other non-WI courses, how much more writing did you do in this course? Were the types of writing assignments different? How so?
3. What types of feedback on your writing were you given in this course (i.e., comments from your professor, peer review, etc.)
4. Of these types of feedback, which were the most helpful to you in improving your writing?
5. If you have taken other WI courses prior to taking this one, in what ways did that course prepare you to write well in this one?
6. In what ways did your writing improve from taking this course? (e.g., learned how to cite properly, improved skills in editing, revising or organization).
7. Other comments, questions, or concerns about writing you would like to share with the Writing Across the Curriculum Committee:

WAC Meeting Agenda
Attendance: Jean Preston, David Steege, Mark Snavely, Diane Keller, Abby Hannah, Ron Cronovich, Anne Cassidy, Ed Montanarro, Rick Matthews, Barb Short
Anticipate the second week of the month in Feb., 2010 for the next meeting.
Tuesday, December 8th
I. Approval of minutes from November 10th

https://wac.carthage.edu/)

II. WAC Assessment: Chris Renaud, Mark, and Rick met. They are going to revamp the writing assessment task force. Chris’ committee will look at student outcomes and are they benefitting from WI courses (WATF). Information as stated in our curriculum initiative previously passed will be helpful for their committee.
a. Increase student success in writing in all instructional areas;
b. Increase student learning through the use of frequent writing;
c. Investigate attitudes and anxieties about writing;
d. Insure student-instructor interaction about writing beyond the first year of college;
e. Recognize excellence in student writing.

Program assessment is the goal for this (WAC) committee. We should ask: Is the program set up ok? Are the courses fitting together? Are the courses building on one another? Do we need broad goals for the dept. that are discipline specific? Increasing the interaction of courses? Is there a pay off in the classroom for writing intensive efforts? How are specific classes contributing to discipline specific goals? What are the courses trying to achieve towards writing goals? How do faculty use writing to assess learning course materials? What are some of the techniques that instructors use improve writing for students? From the registrar’s office, how many WI courses are students taking and how is it helping student writing? How is writing intensive influencing our pedagogy of teaching?

Blind random sampling is needed but can be small for programmatic assessment. Faculty sampling, students in classes, and dept. are different groups involved in information seeking. Asking questions need some work to gain specific data and not perceptions. Student improvement is the bottom line. An electronic portfolio approach for sampling might be helpful for documentation to examine student work. There may be differences for assessing dept. goals vs. general college writing which is what is occurring now. Piloting courses each semester from a division might be useful. Seeing the feedback is important. Giving dept. options for how to achieve dept. goals and models they want to use could prove useful to gain involvement from many depts.

III. Unfinished Business

V. New Business: new arrangements will be made for the writing materials that are currently in Heritage (manuals such as Rules for Writing) to be transferred to CSS sections. Jean Preston will be coordinating with Gary Williams. Specialized pages will be added specific for Carthage students. This will start next fall. All writing intensive classes should use these materials in their class.

WAC Meeting Minutes: C. Renaud, D. Steege, K. Young (registrar’s rep), J. Preston, R. Matthews, B. Short, E. Montanarro, J. Marshall, A. Cassidy, M. Snavely

Tuesday, November 10th

I.              Approval of minutes from October 27th

 

http://www.carthage.edu/academics/committees/wac/

 

II.              Course Proposals

              MLAN 271                            Cyganiak (revised) (revisions accepted)

              SOCW 310                            Geary (revised) (revisions accepted)

              SOCW 253                            Geary (revised) (revisions accepted)

              MRKT 490                            Owens (amended) (accepted)

              Chinese 450                            Yang (WI in Chinese: accepted)

              MGMT 490                            Fields (accepted, but he needs to be certified)

 

III.              Update from adult education: Training to be set up on nights or weekends for adjuncts in adult education.  We need a representative from adult education to come to our meetings, preferably Diane. We look forward to seeing her at the next meeting, the second Tues. in Dec. The committee hopes to oversee academic integrity for all classes as far as writing throughout the college.

 

IV.              Update from WATF/WAC: Depts. might want to assess writing in their own disciplines. WAC would be in charge of programmatic disciplines. What evidence do we have of writing improvement? Rubrics, prompts, goals and outcomes are needed for each dept. It is time to have these conversations at the dept. levels. Chris will be talking to Greg Baer to see what might be coordinated.

 

First step of the WATF is to meet as a committee. Jean, Rick, Udry, Ulrich, D. Miller, Chris are currently on it. Membership needs to be considered.  A rotation should be established.  Divisional representation needs to occur.

 

V.              Unfinished Business: The writing manual may come out of Heritage and into the whole college.  CSS might a home for it. We can personalize the manuals at no extra charge.  This is more than Heritage and the students can’t sell them back.  Jean is working with Gary Williams on this task. A copy should go to each faculty member to use in their classes.

 

V.              New Business: the website has a WAC page, thanks to Elizabeth. Next meeting is Dec. 8 at 8:15am.

 

 

Fear the Fish

WAC Meeting Minutes: Attendance: A. Cassidy, J. Preston, B. Short, J. Marshall, D. Steege, K. Oldani, R. Matthews, M. Snavely

Tuesday, October 27th

I. Approval of minutes from October 13th

https://wac.carthage.edu/)

II. Waiver Requests

EDUC 201: J-term 2007; two students filed; denied.

III. Course Proposals

CRMJ 302 R. Matthews: approved

MGMT 371 C. O’Brien: approved

EDUC 325 P. Moore: approved

SOCI 499 S. Lyng: approved with promise to take the workshop

SOCI 204 M. Unger (revised and resubmitted): approved; discussion ensued

SOCI 271 Somlai: approved

BUSA 330 D. Gillespie (revised and resubmitted): approved

CDM 271 J. Bruning: approved

CLAS/RELI 275 C. Renaud: approved

CLAS 245 C. Renaud: approved: Rick contacting about exam

CLAS/RELI 275 C. Renaud: approved

CLAS 325 C. Renaud: approved

MLAN 271 S. Cyganiak: Rick contacting about lack of feedback/revision; resubmitting proposal; approved pending revision

SOCW 310 D. Geary: Rick contacting about lack of feedback/revision; resubmitting proposal; approved pending revision

SOCW 253 D. Geary: Rick contacting about lack of feedback/revision; resubmitting proposal; approved pending revision

POLS 325 P. Ulrich: approved

MRKT 490 J. Owens: Unclear about feedback process: Rick contacting; asking for clarification via email; approved pending revision.

ENGL 201 A. Duncan: approved retroactively due to clerical error

ENGL 106 A. Duncan: approved retroactively due to clerical error

ENGL 303 A. Duncan: approved retroactively due to clerical error

ENGL 271 A. Duncan: approved

MUSC 471 D. Shapovalov: approved

IV. Unfinished Business:

Discoveries from the proposal reviews:

· Writing workshop training for next year should include some discussion/instruction on what should be included in the proposal

· Courses that are taught as writing intensive must submit a proposal to the committee; adult education and otherwise.

· Adult education should be sending a representative to our meeting.

· This is the last time the committee is approving courses retroactively.

· Rick will be having contact adult education for organizing further coordination.

V. New Business