ASCRC WRITING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 14, 2015, 10:00 a.m. -12:00 p.m., Todd 203
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Stark called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
I. Appelbaum, S. Brown, G. Burns, C. Greenfield, T. Johnson, C. Jardon, H. Jurva, J. Gallo, K.
Hopingardner, D. Raiford, M. Stark
Ex-Officio Members Present: G. Harris, N. Lindsay, N. Peeterse, K. Webster, E. Wecker
Members Absent/Excused: J. Pavilack
Guests: G. Weix
The minutes from May 5th, 2015 were approved.
COMMUNICATION

New members were welcomed and members introduced themselves.

Members were reminded that the meetings are held the first Monday of the month on
10/5, 11/2, and 12/7.

The Writing Symposium is scheduled for September 25th in the Mansfield Library Theta
Rho Room. You can register through the Faculty Development Office to attend an
individual session or the full symposium. There are three sessions.
9:10-10:00 A.M. UPWA: THE STATE OF STUDENT WRITING AT UM
Join us for a discussion of findings from the 2014-15 University-Wide ProgramLevel Writing Assessment (UPWA), a programmatic assessment aimed at identifying
trends in students’ writing strengths and weaknesses.
10:10-11:00 A.M. A STUDENT PERSPECTIVE ON FEEDBACK
Wonder whether students use (or ignore) your feedback? Want to make your
comments count? A panel of undergraduate and graduate students from across the
disciplines will discuss the kinds of feedback they find most helpful.
11:10 A.M.-12:00 P.M. ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES: CULTIVATING STUDENT
AMBITION AND CRITICAL THINKING
Looking for ways to engage students in challenging writing that encourages critical
thinking? Hear how faculty from various disciplines design writing activities that
promote synthesis of ideas, application of knowledge to new situations, and pursuit
of sophisticated questions.
BUSINESS ITEMS

Members are needed to serve on the Transfer Appeal Subcommittee. Professors Gallo,
and Applebaum volunteered as well as Director Webster. The appeal was provided to
Professor Gallo. The group should consider establishing a timeline, so it is clear to
students that the appeal is due long before applying for graduation.

Director Webster summarized the Writing Center Annual Report showcase.
Sophomores continue to have the fewest visits. This could be because their courses do
not require much writing. The data is aggregated according to the writing assignment
discipline not the student’s major. The number of graduate student visits is up and
international students had the most visits. The percentage breakdowns are similar to
the Library’s research service data.
The Jump Start Thesis/ Dissertation Boot Camp is an intensive four-day writing
program during wintersession to support graduate students. The program is open to 45
students. There is already a waiting list for this year’s camp. Last year the funding
($400) for meals was provided by the Research Office. However, it cannot fund the
program this year. So the Writing Center is looking for other sources of funding. Katlin
is serving on the ASUM Graduate Student Outreach committee and suggested the
possibility of ASUM funding the program. She will discuss the possibility with Director
Webster
Other services highlighted included the Sidecar Project, and student and faculty
workshops and consultations. The last visual shows the assessment measures (surveys,
data tracking and evaluations) used by the Writing Center and how it plans to respond.

A workgroup was formed to investigate the challenge of pulling data from Moodle.
Professor Raiford will serve as chair. Other members include Natalie, Irene, and Kelly.

The Committee also needs to think about data security and a procedure for how
information is provided to others. Currently the spreadsheets are on individual’s
computers. The University has identified Banner and Box as being secure. There are
also various network servers used by colleges and schools. The workgroup above was
also assigned the task of developing a data management plan. Chair Stark suggested
that the Vice President for Research may be able to offer some suggestions.

Megan asked members to think about possible dates and venue for the spring Writing
Assessment retreat. There were complaints last year about the size and noise of the
room.
Student members asked for a description of UPWA. Chair Stark explained that the
University-wide Program-level Writing Assessment looks at the health of the Writing
Program by assessing papers submitted by students in Intermediate College Writing
Courses. This replaced the UDWPA which was a writing exam required of all students.
The papers (with identifying information removed) are selected randomly for
assessment. A rubric is used at a Writing Retreat to assess the papers by faculty
teaching intermediate and other courses that require writing. The data and
conversation from the retreat provides topics for the writing symposium. The retreat
provides an opportunity for faculty to reach consensus on assessing students writing in
multiple disciplines. Last year was the first-year of full UPWA implementation. The
Committee is now working to get a better sense of the questions that should be asked of
the data.
Professor Sweeney teaches an intermediate writing course and was wondering about
the results of the assessment. Natalie Peeterse was asked to send the final report to the
instructors.

Professor Raiford is teaching an undergraduate / graduate course in data analytics this
semester. He offered the UPWA data as a potential data set for the graduate students’
project. Two students will be using the data. This should help to identify patterns and
correlations in the data.

Catlin asked why AP credit received for a literature course did not satisfy an
intermediate writing course. Director Wecker explained that there is a disparity
between the objectives for an intermediate writing course and an AP literature course.
The University has a table on the website that lists which courses AP scores satisfy.

ASCRC would like a member of the Writing Committee to serve on the Graduation
Appeals committee given that many of the appeals are related to the writing
requirement. Director Wecker expressed an interest in serving if her schedule allows.

ASCRC would also like the Writing Committee to consider a way that identifies writing
course on students’ transcripts. There is an attribute in Banner so that Course Search
and Academic Planner show a listing of writing courses, but it does not show on the
students’ transcript. Banner has a limited number of characters in the rubric/course
number field. Courses that fulfill more than one general education group have only one
letter after the number. A possible work around may be to include an abbreviation in
parenthesis after the course title, similar to special topics (ST) courses. Service
Learning courses also use the parenthetic after the title. Chair Stark will confirm the
Banner limitations with the Registrar. Grace Harris will work with her to clarify the
process used by professional advisors. The committee will discuss this issue further
next month.

At the next meeting the Committee will spend some time on training for writing course
review and approval so everyone understands what is expected. During the review
members should consider whether intermediate upper-division courses are
appropriate. It is hoped that the new labels will prevent faculty from completing the
wrong forms. After the review the Committee may need to have a more robust
discussion about this issue.

The Registrar’s Office asked that the Committee do some outreach regarding the label
change. Several options were explored. Professor Applebaum and Grace Harris will
draft a short email for advisors to be sent in October. The advisor list serve was sent a
message from Beth Howard when the change was approved by the Faculty Senate. The
label changes were also mentioned in the curriculum deadline memo that was sent to all
faculty members.

Chair Stark asked members whether there were any issues that the committee should
consider this year.
o
Professor Weix asked about the rolling review of Social Science writing courses.
The General Education Committee allows courses that have not changed and taught
by the same instructor to skip part of the form, but that is not the case for writing
courses. If instructors would like to view the form submitted for the last review
they can contact Camie. Courses not submitted will lose their writing designation
next fall.
o
The academic advisor for English has noticed that there is a gap for students who
pass, a developmental writing course (WRIT 095) with a C- to passing WRIT 101
with a C. There needs to be a better connection between WRIT 095 and WRIT 101.
The instructors of the two courses need to be talking to one another, especially if the
intent is for the courses to be layered. Representatives from EASL and ELI should be
included in the conversation as well.
Non-traditional students are being directly marketed to attend Missoula College as a
pathway to a four-year degree, but they are not being adequately supported. This is
reflected in retention. They have only one chance to build writing and other skills.
Some of them elect to re-take WRIT 095, but there are lots of gaps. There needs to
be better development in place. Missoula College faculty members take pride in the
successes, but there needs to be more infrastructures to support and help develop
the skills of at- risk students.
Director Wecker will set up a meeting with Missoula College. Director Webster will
put together a list of people that need to be involved in the discussion. Professor
Applebaum wonders whether a tutoring program could be initiated with volunteers.
Irene, Kelly, Erin and Todd will work opening lines of communication and report
back with how the Writing Committee could support the effort.

Professors Applebaum and Weix identified areas in the catalog that need to be updated
with the new label language. The Registrar is working with IT to make the edits.

Associate Provost Lindsay spoke to the issue of how to incorporate more assessment
into writing courses. Previously Associate Provost Walker-Andrews worked with
several departments to include assessment of writing in their assessment plans. One
option is to require instructors to provide more information about how they measure
the writing learning outcomes. The Committee may consider a pilot project in the
spring.

The Committee should think of ways to promote the new Website for Writing Course
Resources. Professor Raiford just sent an email so that it will be included in the online
A- Z listing.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.