The Wild Rumpus: Building
Successful Writing Programs
Through Professional Development
Our “double-whammy” Wild Rumpus consists of two sessions where ideas will come fast and discussion will be exciting and energizing. Please join us and . . .

Using Community to Promote
Professional Development in WID
Programs
Joel Wingard
Moravian College

 “small” faculty ( 
115, for

1580 students)

 “small” campus (although split in two)

 veteran professor is WAC/WID director

 interdisciplinary GenEd and FYS committees

 new “WIDOC” also interdisciplinary -talking to departments

 faculty development workshops every May

 “resources for writing teachers” annotated bibliography http://www.joelwingard.com/


Blackboard site for FYS planning http://blackboard.moravian.edu/webapps/portal/f rameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2F webapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flaunc her%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4231_1%
26url%3D

An Intensive Faculty Enrichment
Program for Full-time Instructors in an Independent Writing Program
Donna Nelson-Beene
Bowling Green State University
General Studies Writing Program

Bowling Green State University

General Studies Writing
(GSW)
◦ University’s independent first-year writing program
◦ Serves approximately 4000 students each semester
◦ Teaching staff of 41 instructors and 50+ graduate assistants
General Studies Writing Program

Features of portfolio assessment which promote program coherence, standards, collaboration—and ongoing professional development
• Student writing
• Standardized rubric and audience sheets
• Standardized student process analysis
• Narrative self-reflection
General Studies Writing Program

Program Requirements for
Instructors
• Electronic teaching
Portfolios
• Teaching philosophy statements
• Observation triads
• Service expectations
General Studies Writing Program

Ownership of the program

Instructors have a voice

Committee participation
◦ Learning Outcomes and
Assessment
◦ Textbook Approval
◦ Technology
◦ Placement Prompts
◦ Think Tanks
◦ Merit Evaluation
◦ Writing Awards
◦ Search Committees
General Studies Writing Program

Professional development within the program

Faculty development workshops

Regular meetings

Workshop presenters

Extensive Blackboard site

GSW manuals

Summer retreats
General Studies Writing Program

Dr. Darby Lewes, Lycoming College:
(English professor by day; dog trainer by night) text

Professional development opportunities across campus

Faculty learning communities

Workshops

University committee work

Teaching in residential learning communities

Linked courses

Campus events
General Studies Writing Program

4/11/2020

When the mentoring of non-tenure track faculty is intentional, ongoing, and multifaceted, instructors not only become strong and empowered educators, but they become leaders on campus and within the discipline .
General Studies Writing Program
• Involvement in university initiatives
• Teaching for other units on campus
• Leadership on university committees
• Presence at professional conferences
• Award winners

Engaged Assessment:
Involving PTF, GTAs, and
Lecturers
Gwen Gorzelsky
Wayne State University
CWPA Conference
Baton Rouge, LA July 2011

Wayne State University (WSU)
Program Context
• Basic Writing (40 sections), FYC (50),
Intermediate Writing (30), 2 technical writing courses (10)
• WAC: Writing Intensive (WI) course in major
• Instructors: GTAs (30), PTF (50), F-T lecturers (5)

• External assessment 10 years ago
• Limited internal assessment W 2006: 30
FYC portfolios —competency in limited range of genres (reflective, interpretive)
• New curriculum 2007 – 2009: FYC focus = argument; Intermediate Writing focus = preparation for WI courses
• Call for assessment fall 2010: disciplinespecific

• Learn whether and to what extent students are transferring writing-related skills and knowledge
• Involve instructors substantively at all stages
• Close the loop: use assessment findings to improve curriculum, pedagogy, professional development

• Assessment: Broad (2003; 2009); O’Neill,
Moore, and Huot (2009)
• Transfer: Bergmann and Zepernick
(2007); Downs and Wardle (2007);
Perkins and Salomon (1988; 1992);
Wardle (2009)
• Reflections and portfolios: Anson (1997);
White (2005); Yancey (1998); Robertson,
Taczak, and Yancey (forthcoming)

Initial Assessment: Approach and
Methods
• Beginning with the transition from
Intermediate Writing to Writing
Intensives
• One course per year (FYC 2012 -13;
BW 2013-14; tech writing 2014-15)
• Student surveys
• Student and instructor focus groups
• Instructor Dynamic Criteria Mapping
(DCM) sessions

• Designing and implementing
• Participating
• Interpreting and applying findings
• Creating a connected culture
• Using findings

Interpreting and Applying:
Orientation, Workshops,
Mentoring Resources
• Surveyed GTAs anonymously
• Asked Mentoring Committee to draw on informal interactions/own teaching experience
• Asked Assessment Committee to draw on assessment findings
• Held joint Mentoring and Assessment
Committee meeting to develop final lists

Interpreting and Applying:
Pilot Intermediate Writing Sections
• Testing Writing About Writing (WAW) curriculum and reflective curriculum: 2 WAW-only; 2 WAW + reflection; 2 control
• Meeting in July & Aug. to design syllabi and assignments
• Drawing on initial assessment findings: genre and audience in WI courses; sequenced assignments
• Drawing on O’Neill, Moore, and Huot: incorporating instructors’ interests and experience
• Using White’s Phase 2 approach – portfolio evaluation focused on reflective letters that document students’ achievement of learning outcomes

Creating a Connected Culture:
Role of New FYC Lecturer
Cohort
• Meeting regularly as a staff
• Piloting reflection assignments in FYC
• Acting as informal mentors for GTAs,
PTF
• Consulting on strategies for engaging
PTF
• Designing orientation and workshop sessions

Patricia Freitag Ericsson
Director of Composition
Washington State University

• About 200 sections of Composition courses serving 4500 students
• Taught by a mix of TA’s, Instructors, and other faculty
• TA’s have pedagogy, theory seminar
• Instructors have little support

• Support pedagogy
• Create community
• Foster awareness of program history
• Assure knowledge of WSU policies and programs

• Guest speakers who have contributed to WSU Composition Program
• Presentations by campus support units
• Pedagogy workshops
• Certificate provided to those who attended at least 10 sessions

• General Support:
• Ideas for Classroom teaching:
• Teaching goals more ambitious:
• Made me a better teacher:
84%
84%
52%
84%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

• Felt welcome at sessions: 100%
• Found others who shared interests: 68%
• Developed friendships:
• Got to know others better:
60%
80%
• Feel positive about PDC experience: 88%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

68% agree or strongly agree
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

56% strongly agree or agree
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

• Certificate was an incentive: 60%
• Certificate validated experience: 52%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

The PDC Series provided a successful professional development foundation for Composition teachers.
Questions for Fall 2011
• How should we balance types of sessions?
• Should we continue with year-long themes for singlepresenter sessions?
• How do we handle policy sessions?
• Are certificates worthwhile?

Teaching Portfolios for Stronger
Program Assessment and
Professionalization
Edwina Helton
Indiana University East
Presented by Jeff Jones

Your questions and contributions