LACC Meeting Minutes
Friday, April 18, 2014
378 Library
Attendees: Lori VanHooreweghe, Michael Klassen, Gary Gute, Deedee Heistad, Donna Vinton,
Blake Findley, Jean Neibauer, Susan Roberts Dobie, Kim Cline-Brown, Ellen Neuhaus, Paul
Andersen, new NISG vice president, April Chatham-Carpenter
Guest: David Grant, University Writing Committee
Deedee opened the meeting and introduced Paul.
David Grant gave an overview of work being done on vertically integrating writing beyond the
first year of college. Results of the committee work is referenced in the attached table. He said
the committee chose to review current peer institutions and added Wisconsin LeCrosse. UNI is
behind its peers. He acknowledged that there is no room in the LAC core for additional writing
courses. He said that typically a stand-alone writing course with embedded intensive writing is
in some other course within a discipline.
Chatham-Carpenter agreed that everyone is in favor of adding additional writing exit
requirements of some kind. She discussed the LAC-RSC initial suggestion to increase the writing
requirement by 2 additional intensive writing requirements. Other suggestions include
certifying certain majors as writing intensive. The goal is for students to take the writing
intensive courses over their college career, not just in the first year. Another option is an
honor’s thesis.
VanHooreweghe said that the more she learns about writing, the more she learns about how
specific writing is different within different fields.
Heistad challenged the determination of how much writing is actually taking place. The table
reviews university level requirements. She said that the faculty need to be able to talk about
the amount of writing within the major. We need to find out about our own university. We
haven’t studied our majors.
Grant said that we do not have a comprehensive overview. Vinton said she does have that
information. She said the type of writing, type of feedback, amount of writing, etc. can be
accessed at the department level.
Findley said that the question is not only the amount of writing, but how the writing is
evaluated.
Discussion followed on intensive writing, feedback, instructor abilities with respect to grading
writing essentials (grammar, syntax, punctuation, etc.), assessing writing, establishing
parameters, increasing student writing at UNI.
Klassen said there is a feeling that every person who graduates has a level of writing skills. He
said that every person who walks out of this institution should be a good writer. He said we will
not accomplish this goal until we are working with a universal standard.
Heistad said that we can describe what skills an undergraduate has upon graduation. Using the
AAC&U rubrics we know what freshman writing looks like. The problem is that we have no plan
for the rest of the college career.
Heistad said that she is in the process of creating a Category 6 coordinating committee. She said
that within this body we have talked about making capstone writing intensive. It’s something
that we could write into the outcomes as we go forward. This might be one possibility within
the LAC in terms of defining what good writing is, it might be helpful for the writing committee
to take a look at the AAC&U rubric to show what we think good writing is at the end of the first
year. Heistad asked if we need intensive speaking courses. Do we need intensive
communication?
Klassen said that he believes discipline specific wiring it just a way for students to be lazy. He
said he hears time and time again from New York ad agencies it to give them good writers and
they will teach them the rest.
Cline-Brown mentioned grammar aspects of writing feedback. She said if that is not your field it
is difficult for faculty to grade grammar.
Roberts-Dobie moved that the LACC recognize that UNI students are not receiving enough
instruction in writing throughout their college career. The LACC endorses the idea that UNI
student need more intentional opportunities for purposeful writing throughout their college
education at the University of Northern Iowa.
Chatham-Carpenter seconded.
All voted for the motion with the exception of Klassen, who opposed it. There were no
abstentions.
Meeting adjourned at 9:23 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sue Jordan
University Writing Committee Presentation to LACC
18 April, 2014
Institution
Total UG Writing
Credits (semester
hours)
Cal State Fresno
Central Michigan
Illinois State
Indiana State
Freshman/Sophomore
credits vs. Junior/
Senior Credits
General Writing
Credits vs. Writing in
a Discipline
4 or 6
12
3-6
9
3/1 or 3/3
3/9
3/3
3/6
3/3
6/6
--6/3
6
3
9
3/ variable
3/0
3/6
variable
3/0
3/6
6
6-9
6
3/3
3/3-6
3/3
3/3
3/3-6
3/3
9
4
6
6
6/3
4/0
6/0
3/3
6/3
--6/0
3/3
UC – Davis
5.33 (8 quarter credit
hours)
2.67/ 2.67
Varies by college
UNC – Greensboro
Reasoning
and
Discourse
Writing
Intensive
Total
variable
Varies by college
12
6 or 10
2 or 5
3
3 or 7/3
All lower division
3/0
3 or 7/3
2 or 5/ 0
3/0
Average
6.35 – 7.185
3.33/ 2.98
3.125/ 2.43
Median
6
3/3
3/3
Iowa State
Minnesota – Duluth
Minnesota State –
Mankato
Northern Arizona
Ohio University
Portland State
San Francisco State
U of Iowa
North Texas
Wisconsin –
LaCrosse
Wayne State
UW – Eau Claire
UNI
6
6