Writing Committee Annual Report 2012-2013
Membership
Faculty Members
2013
2015
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
Beverly Chin (Chair)
English
Gene Burns
HHP
Richard Sattler*
Anthropology
Cathy Corr
Applied Arts & Sci
Megan Stark
Mansfield Library
John Glendening
English
G.G. Weix
Anthropology
Frank Rosenzweig*
DBS
*resigned spring semester
Student Member
Jody Drew
Jill Melcher
Mark Triana
Joey Moore – fall only
PhD Student, Ed
Leadership
TA, WRIT 101
TA, WRIT 101
Undergraduate, Psyc
Beverly.chin@umontana.edu
Gene.burns@mso.umt.edu
Richard.sattler@umontana.edu
Cathy.corr@mso.umt.edu
Megan.stark@umontana.edu
John.Glendening@mso.umt.edu
g.weix@umontana.edu
frank.rosenzweig@umontana.edu
2463
5241
5833
7903
2864
5266
6319
5122
Jody.drew@umontana.edu
Jill.melcher@umconnect.umt.edu
mark.triana@umontana.edu
joey.moore@umconnect.umt.edu
Additional Representatives (Ex-Officio)
Ed Johnson, Registrar (or designee)
Kelly Webster, Director, Writing Center**
Kate Ryan, Director, Composition
Douglas Raiford, Assessment Committee
Liaison
Carl Corder, Writing Assessment Coordinator
Edwin.johnson@mso.umt.edu
Kelly.webster@mso.umt.edu
kathleen.ryan@mso.umt.edu
Douglas.Raiford@mso.umt.edu
2412
2470
4410
2883
carlcorder@gmail.com
**On leave March & April replaced by Jacob Hanson, Jacob.Hansen@mso.umt.edu
Business items:
Writing Course Review
A total of 48 writing course forms were submitted for new, renew or removal of writing
designations. There were 5 new writing courses, 3 upper-division writing courses and 3 upperdivision writing course removals. In addition to new courses the Writing Committee conducted
a rolling review of a fourth of the writing courses (WRIT and LIT) to determine that they were in
compliance with current criteria and learning outcomes. Fourteen writing courses and 10 upperdivision writing courses were approved. Originally English submitted its upper-division writing
courses on the wrong form, so the committee extended the deadline for the department to correct
the error. Likely as a result it did not submit several upper-division writing courses with the
understanding that they would lose the writing designation. The consent agenda is available in
Appendix 1. A few additional forms were received in the spring to reconsider courses approved
(LIT 201) or not submitted (WRIT 222) in the fall.
History advertised a course as satisfying their upper-division writing requirement, but neglected
to apply for the designation. The department asked for a retroactive approval. The committee
expressed concern that departments are not held accountable when exceptions are made. The
committee reviewed HSTA 417 and determined that it meets the upper-division Writing
Requirement. The Registrar’s Office was able to add this to the schedule and Banner for the
students currently enrolled.
Both the Writing Course Form and the Upper-division Writing Course Form were revised based
on feedback from the writing course review. Exemplary responses to the form questions,
syllabus, and handouts with comments /arrows would be helpful.
A letter was sent to all writing instructors reminding them that writing learning outcomes are
required on approved writing course syllabi.
Writing Symposium
The Writing Symposium was Friday, November 2nd. There were between 20-30 participants at
each of the three one-hour sessions:1) How Rubrics Help Students and Teachers, 2) Providing
Productive Feedback in a Reasonable Amount of Time, and 3) Revision Strategies that Work. It
was valuable to have presenters across disciplines and authentic audience participation. The
Writing Committee hopes there will be future symposiums in collaboration with the Faculty
Development Office and the Pedagogy Project. Writing committee members Beverly Chin,
Cathy Corr, and Director Webster led sessions.
The Montana Writing Summit
Several members of the Writing Committee attended the Montana Writing Summit: Sustaining
Gains. Chair Chin was Keynote speaker. The summit brought together high school and college
writing instructors from around the state. The Montana University System Writing Assessment
(MUSWA) has worked on assessment and common core state standards for the past 12 years.
Future efforts will focus on Literacy in Social Science, Science, and Technical Subjects
(LISSTS) funded through a Title II grant.
Information Literacy Workshop
An Information Literacy Workshop was held Thursday, March 7, from 11-12, at MLIB 283. The
workshop was co-sponsored by the Writing Committee, the Faculty Development Office, and the
Mansfield Library. The focus was to facilitate understanding of Information Literacy in terms of
critical thinking and reading. Sue Samson in the Mansfield Library gave the workshop.
Director Webster and Professor Stark were involved with the planning.
Writing Center Annual Report
Director Webster summarized the executive summary of the Writing Center’s Annual report (see
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/WritingCenterReportES11.12.pdf ).
Assessment of Composition
Composition Director, Kate Ryan provided an overview of WRIT 101 assessment efforts.
Members should reference the web page
(http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ101/writ101.cfm) for general information. See
Appendix 2.
Policy
Writing Course Transfer Equivalency Appeal Guidelines. The Writing Committee approved the
draft procedure 202.50.5 (See Appendix 3).
Designated Writing Course Information Survey
Data was needed in order to create a position paper on the need for additional lower- division
writing courses. The Committee devised a survey and sent it to department chairs and academic
advisors early spring semester. Data from the survey suggests that most departments are meeting
their students’ needs. The results do not support an access /capacity problem across campus.
They do show that some departments that require a specific type of writing (scientific writing)
are struggling to meet students’ needs. The results might be different if students were surveyed.
The comments relate to a lack of resources and some unfortunate scapegoating of WRIT 101.
The results are available at:
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/Designated%20Writing%20C
ourse%20Information%20Survey.pdf
Writing Program Requirement Labels
By request the committee considered renaming the upper-division writing requirement.
The Committee’s first recommendation to ASCRC was to revise the labels from Approved
Writing Course and Upper-Division Writing Requirement in the Major to “Writing to Learn” WL and “Writing in the Discipline”-WD. ASCRC sent the motion back to the committee for
further consideration. It was not in favor of “Writing to Learn” because all writing assigned in
courses is designed for students to learn, so it is not a sufficient descriptor. The Committee
dropped “to learn” from the first title and sent the recommendation back to ASCRC with a
request for suggestions if not acceptable. The ASCRC Chair requested a detailed motion and
Professor Tully Thibeau volunteered to help Chair Chin with the draft. The motion was drafted
(See Appendix 4) and considered, but again it was sent back. It was not clear how this would be
implemented or how the distributed model and 1-credit add on courses would be handled.
Camie contacted DBS, Forestry, and Political Science for feedback. Forestry believes the WD
prior to the course title will not serve their students and not all Forestry students take the
distributed writing courses, which will not have a WD. Political Science felt the WD was an
ambiguous term given that writing-approved courses can also be in the student’s major
discipline, and suggested UDW. Another concern was how the change would be communicated
to instructors / departments. Since it was too late for the change to be implemented for the
2014-2015 catalog, the Writing Committee will refine the motion and articulate an
implementation plan to be considered in the fall by ASCRC.
Motion to change title of General Education Group 1
The following motion will be delivered to ASCRC early next fall in conjunction with the
proposed writing program requirement labels:
Whereas, the responsibility of teaching writing is shared across campus and not limited
to the English department; and
Whereas, the use of the word "skills" is reductive; and
Whereas, the structure of the requirement should parallel others (i.e. Mathematics,
Modern and Classical Languages);
therefore Be it Resolved that the course catalog General Education Requirements Group
I: English Writing Skills be amended to read Group I: Writing
Upper-division Writing Requirement to be taken at UM
Nancy Hinman, Interim Associate Provost requested the Committee consider policy requiring
students to take the upper-division writing requirement at UM. The current catalog language
(below) is sufficient.
Upper-Division Writing Requirement All students must meet the approved upperdivision writing requirements specified by their majors. Students should seek specific
information about the upper-division writing requirements in their major in the section of
the catalog where information about their chosen major is given.
Writing Assessment Pilot – Phase 1
The rubric worksheet created last year was used to review the forms for approved writing
courses (See
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/rubricWorksheet.xlsx). The
results were entered electronically into a Google form for ease of data collection.
General Findings
Overall, writing course requirements are being met by the majority of teachers, as
demonstrated by the survey data.



In particular, more than half of the courses include the writing outcomes on their
syllabi (58%), while 68% provide students with detailed requirements for all
written assignments.
Typically, 3%-6% of the courses taught do not meet one or more of the required
goals.
3% of the classes do not meet the minimum requirement of 16 pages of writing.
The survey data shows that the following learning outcomes are being taught to students
the majority of the time:



Use writing to learn and synthesize concepts
Formulate and express opinions and ideas in writing
Compose written documents that are appropriate for a given audience or purpose
The survey data shows that teachers are least successful in giving students guided
opportunities for learning how to find, evaluate and use information effectively. This is
an issue the committee is committed to improving (as the workshop this spring indicates).
Recommendations
1. We recommend further improvement helping faculty provide students with guided
opportunities for learning how to find, evaluate and use information effectively.
2. We recommend that those few courses that do not meet the majority of the required
goals (and haven’t in earlier iterations) not receive credit as approved writing courses
in the future.
Writing Assessment Pilot – Phase 2
Phase 2 is designed to assess whether student writing shows evidence of meeting learning
outcomes. After struggling to identify training papers using the analytic rubric created last year,
the committee determined that a holistic scoring rubric was more appropriate for large scale
programmatic assessment. A holistic rubric was drafted using the writing program learning
outcomes modeled after the ACT Writing Assessment and Montana University System – Writing
Assessment. The Committee reviewed the holistic rubric (See Appendix 5) and applied it to
sample papers. A workgroup identified and annotated training papers for the writing retreat.
In the Fall semester of 2012, Instructors of 100- and 200- level Writing-Approved courses were
asked to participate in a writing submission process for the Pilot Writing Assessment. Students
were encouraged to upload a writing paper into Moodle. Nearly 500 samples were submitted
from the 1,000 students asked to participate, along with the instructor’s instructions for the
students’ respective assignments. From those 500 submissions, 70 were selected with a random
sampling tool, and were then made anonymous by removing student and instructor names.
Writing Assessment Pilot Retreat
The Writing Retreat was Friday, April 12th at the Keep Restaurant on Ben Hogen Drive in
Missoula. Four anchor papers were sent in advance to the 19 participants. The goals for the
retreat were:
1. To discover how the training/scoring process supports scorers’ ability to assess
students’ papers with validity, reliability, and efficiency;
2. To critique and revise the draft 4-point holistic rubric;
3. To create training materials for next year’s assessment by identifying and writing draft
annotations for training papers; and
4. To consider the feasibility and sustainability of conducting an annual assessment of
students’ writing through a writing retreat.
The agenda started with an introduction to the holistic rubric and anchor papers followed by a
discussion of the annotations. Next, participants discussed training papers with annotations to
norm their scoring to the rubric. Then, random papers were individually read and scored. Groups
of participants discussed their scores and agreed on a consensus score. This process continued
after lunch with participants identifying potential training papers and writing draft annotations
for future retreats. A total of 47 papers were reviewed. Of these papers 4% were rated as
receiving a score of 1, 27% a score of 2, 55% a score of 3 and 13% a score of 4.
Evaluation comments from participants (see appendix 6) confirmed that the holistic rubric was
valid, easy to use and applicable for assessment purposes. Based on the success of this retreat, the
holistic rubric and the general success of the Pilot for phase 2 this programmatic assessment of
writing is a feasible replacement of the UDWPA. To implement fully the Writing Program
Assessment the Writing Committee recommends the following:
1. Wider participation is necessary from 100 and 200 level writing approved course
instructors.
2. A larger pool of scorers is needed—primarily tenure track faculty, as this would foster
program-level discussion of writing and assessment. This increase in faculty participation
will allow us to score a higher volume of submissions.
Given the charge from ASCRC, the Writing Committee plans to submit the final report on the
complete pilot project (phase 1, 2, and 3) and recommend the end of the UDWPA and the
adoption of program level assessment effective early fall 2013.
Appendix 1
Approved Writing Courses
BGEN 200
CSCI 215E
FILM 320
HSTA 315
HSTA 385
HSTR 334
HSTR 358
LIT 110L
LIT 120L
LIT 201
LIT 210L
LIT 211L
LIT 220L
LIT 221L
LIT 222L
WRIT 121
WRIT 201
WRIT 240E
WRIT 325
NRSM 200
Business Communication
Social and Ethical Issues in Computer Science
English Literature Shakespeare
The Early American Republic 1787-1848
America Families and Children
Latin American: Reform and Revolution
Russia since 1881
Introduction to Literature
Introduction to Poetry
Introduction to Literary Studies
American Literature I
American Literature Survey II
British Literature: Medieval to Renaissance
British Literature: The Enlightenment to Romanticism
British Lit: Victorian to Contemporary: Lecture
Introduction to Technical Writing
College Writing II: Advanced Composition
Arguments and Contemporary Issues
Writing in the Sciences
Natural Resources Writing
New
New
New
New
New
Upper-Division Writing Courses
LIT 300
LIT 304
LIT 316
LIT 327
LIT 342
LIT 343
LIT 353
LIT 376
LIT 494
ANTY 403E
HSTA 468 UG
(467)
HSTA 417
HSTR 422
Introduction to Literary Criticism
US Writers of Color
Topics in Postcolonial Theory
Shakespeare
Montana Writers
African American Literature
Milton
Literature and Other Disciplines
Capstone Seminar in Literature
Ethics and Anthropology
Researching and Writing Early America and the
Atlantic World
Prayer and Civil Rights
Historical Research Seminar: Postwar America
New
LIT 494
LS 484
BGMT 444
BMGT 426
SW 310
SW 300
Capstone Seminar in Literature
Novel Ancient and Modern
Management Communications
Strategic Management
Social Welfare Policies and Services
Human Behavior in the Social Environment
New
Remove
Remove
Remove
New
Appendix 2
Composition Program Overview
Placement
Students Placed into WRIT 095, 101, or 201 based on their scores on the following tests: MUSWA,
SAT or ACT Writing Subscore, SAT Writing Section, Combined English/Writing ACT, or AP Lang
and Composition score. We also use a local assessment for those students who don’t have scores to
report. This approach follows BOR Policy 301.17 – Composition Placement, established in 2007.
Overview of Courses
In addition to College Writing I (WRIT 101) and College Writing II (WRIT 201), the Composition
Program offers composition classes in the computer classroom; occasional special topics courses in
Rhetoric and Composition Studies; and Teaching College Composition (WRIT 540), a requirement
for first-year composition instructors. This course provides new UM Composition Program teaching
assistants with an introduction to theories and practices that surround composition pedagogy.
Mission
The Composition Program seeks to advance the University´s mission to pursue academic excellence
in the context of writing instruction. Undergraduate composition courses, as part of general
education at the University of Montana, help students become more effective writers and
researchers by teaching students flexible strategies for researching and composing texts. These
courses privilege a workshop environment where students learn about composition and rhetorical
theory by practicing reading, researching, and writing as acts of inquiry. Students often work in small
groups to write, read, and problem-solve together. Students create portfolios of their writing
throughout the semester because this kind of assessment supports student agency and change–that
is, rhetorical agility developed over time in different genres.
Outcomes for College Writing I, WRIT 101.
http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ101/outcomes101.cfm
Outcomes for College Writing II, WRIT 201
http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ201/outcomes201.cfm
WRIT 540 Overview
http://www.cas.umt.edu/english/composition/writ540.cfm
Methods of Assessment
Students (enrolled in right class). placement, placement survey tool.
Instructor Assessment. Course observations, course evaluations (narrative and scantron), grading
tables, renewal process.
Program Assessment. We look across the instructor assessments over time and to inquire into
particular questions to do program assessment. For instance, we regularly look at a few specific
questions on the scantron evaluation, including those on the instructor’s use of class time, or ability
to explain (instructions or concepts). We have also used questionnaires, reflections, and
conversation to gather information from teachers & instructors. We emphasize instructor
assessment as a critical part of program assessment because our TAs often have little to no teaching
experience and only teach between 2-4 semesters.
Inquiry-Based Assessment. Based on what we learn from other assessments, we might decide
there’s a need for a specific assessment project.
Example: Conducted assessment when WRIT 195 was being developed into an ongoing course to
articulate the outcomes. Phase 1. Conducted a questionnaire to gather information about why
students choose to take WRIT 201 & looked at a sampling of reflective introductions to student
portfolios. Phase 2. Collected teacher reflections on the assessment project, an additional set of
reflective essays, and samples of student writing from the major papers. We all met together and
talked about what we observed across the samples, what we thought it meant, and what we wanted
to change or keep in the course to create the outcomes and design our syllabi.
Example: Conducting assessment of portfolio learning. The first phase is a survey of WRIT 101 at
the end of semester. Our goal is to gather information on this question: How is portfolio teaching
going for first year teachers of writing?
Appendix 3
Procedure Number: 202.50.5
Procedure:
Writing Course Transfer Equivalency Appeal Guidelines
Date Adopted:
10/1/12
Last Revision:
Approved by:
10/1/12
ASCRC Writing Committee
Writing Course Requirement and Transfer Students
The Admissions Office (406-243-6266) evaluates transcripts for course equivalencies with
the exception of UM’s approved writing courses. If transfer students believe a transfer
course meets the approved writing course requirement
(http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/committees/writing_committee/guidelines.php),
they may petition for an exemption through the Writing Committee. These students must
provide the following information to the Writing Committee. Appeal information should be
submitted to the Faculty Senate Office, UH 221, camie.foos@mso.umt.edu, 243-5553.
1. A cover letter outlining the basis for the request. Include pertinent information such as
contact information, student ID number, and how you fulfilled this requirement in a
course at your previous institution.
2. A syllabus and course description. The course must include at least 16 pages of writing
for assessment and at least 50% of the course grade should be based on your
performance on writing assignments.
3. Three papers from the equivalent writing course or courses following the completion of
the course with original instructor comments. Original instructor comments are
those grading and feedback markings on papers that are returned to the student for
revision or at the end of the term. Papers without these comments will not be
considered. At least one of these papers must be at least six pages long and include a
bibliography or works cited. Your papers should demonstrate your ability to:







Use writing to learn and synthesize new concepts
formulate and express written ideas that are developed, logical, and organized
Compose written texts that are appropriate for a given audience, purpose, and context
Revise written work based on comments from the instructor
Find, evaluate, and use information effectively and ethically
Begin to use discipline-specific writing conventions
Demonstrate appropriate English language usage.
Incomplete packets will not be evaluated.
This information pertains only to the approved writing course, not the departmental
upper-division writing requirement. Students should speak to their major department
regarding any issues relating to the upper-division writing requirement.
Appendix 4
Writing Requirements for Graduation
Motion to ASCRC
To fulfill the writing requirements at UM and to demonstrate proficiency in the skill of writing,
students must satisfy the following four requirements in the order given:
1. Entry-level Composition WRIT 101 or 201 (ENEX 101, WTS 101, ENEX 200, or
equivalent),
2. One Approved Writing Course (designated W),
3. The Upper-Division Writing Proficiency Assessment, with a score of 3/3 or better,
4. Upper-Division Writing Course in the Discipline (designated WD) *
* This requirement may be fulfilled by:
• One upper-division writing course (numbered 300-400), determined by the
department and approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee
• An upper-division writing expectation, determined by the department and
approved by the ASCRC Writing Committee**
** This could be a distribution model which includes a synthesis of upper-division
courses that collectively meet the learning outcomes of WD or a 1 credit add-on
attached to an upper-division course that collectively meet the learning outcomes of
WD. *
Note: The Approved Writing course will be identified in the catalog and on students’ transcripts
by titles that start with W: course title. The Upper-Division Writing in the Discipline course will
be identified with a title that starts with WD: course title.
Upper-Division Writing Courses
The following courses are approved as meeting the criteria for the upper-division writing
course in the discipline. Students should consult with their advisor regarding the requirement
specified by their major.
Note: DBS majors (Biology, Microbiology, and Medical Technology) may take a combination
of two or three courses to satisfy the Upper Division Writing Requirement in the discipline. See
listing at: (list maintained on Department Website)
Forestry majors in Resource Conservation, Forest Management, Wildland Restoration, and
Parks, Tourism, and Recreation Management may satisfy the Upper Division Writing
Requirement in the discipline by taking a combination of three courses. See Listing at: (list
maintained on Department Website)
Include in normal Upper Division Writing Course listing:
PSCI 400 *
WD: Advanced Writing in Political Sciences
*1 credit ad-on course for Political Science Majors taken in conjunction with
another upper-division PSCI course.
Sample of Courses listed on DBS website
2/3 Writing Courses
BCH 486
BCH 499
BIOB 411
BIOB 499
BIOE 371
BIOL 342
BIOH 462
BIOM 410
BIOM 499
Biochemistry Research Lab
Senior Thesis
Immunology Lab
Senior Thesis
General Ecology Lab
Field Ecology
Principles of Medical Physiology
Microbial Genetics
Senior Thesis
1/3 Writing Courses
BCH 482
BIOB 410
BIOB 425
BIOE 403
BIOE 406
BIOE 428
BIOL 483
BIOL 484
BIOM 402
BIOO 320
BIOO 434
BIOO 470
BIOO 475
Advanced Biochemistry II
Immunology
Advanced Cell Biology
Vertebrate Design & Evolution
Behavior & Evolution
Freshwater Ecology
Mol. Phylogenetics & Evolution
Plant Evolution
Medical Bacteriology & Mycology
General Botany (S)
Plant Physiology Lab (S)
Ornithology (S)
Mammalogy
Appendix 5
ASCRC Writing Committee Holistic Rubric for Approved Writing Courses
(Revised April 12, 2013)
Learning Outcomes for Approved Writing Courses
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Use writing to learn and synthesize new concepts
Formulate and express opinions and ideas in writing
Compose written documents that are appropriate for a given audience or purpose
Revise written work based on constructive feedback
Find, evaluate, and use information effectively
Begin to use discipline-specific writing conventions (largely style conventions like APA or MLA)
Demonstrate appropriate English language usage
Score 4: Advanced
These texts demonstrate a clear ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas is articulate,
developed, and well-organized. The texts show a strong sense of purpose and audience. The texts
consistently show the writer’s ability to evaluate and use information effectively. Writing style (word
choice and sentence fluency) is highly effective for the purpose and audience. The writer is beginning to
use discipline-specific writing conventions with general success. While there may be a few errors in
grammar, usage, and mechanics, a strong command of English language usage is clearly evident.
Score 3: Proficient
These texts demonstrate an ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas is generally developed and
organized. The texts show a clear sense of purpose and audience. The texts show the writer’s ability to
evaluate and use information. Writing style (word choice and sentence fluency) is effective for the
purpose and audience. The writer is beginning to use discipline-specific writing conventions with uneven
success. While there may be some errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics, a competency in English
language usage is evident.
Score 2: Nearing Proficiency
These texts demonstrate developing ability to synthesize concepts. Expression of ideas may be vague,
unclear, and/or unorganized at times. The texts show some attention to purpose and audience. The texts
reveal the writer’s uneven ability to use information; use of information may be insufficient. Writing
style (word choice and sentence fluency) is sometimes ineffective for the purpose and audience. The
writer shows minimal knowledge of discipline-specific writing conventions. A basic control of English
language usage is apparent, even though frequent errors in grammar, usage, or mechanics may
occasionally hinder understanding.
Score 1: Novice
These texts demonstrate difficulty in synthesizing concepts. Expression of ideas is confusing, minimal, or
irrelevant; the organization is illogical or weak. The texts show little understanding of purpose and/or
audience. The writer’s use of information is inaccurate, inappropriate, or missing. Writing style (word
choice and sentence fluency) is not effective for the purpose and audience. The writer shows little to no
awareness of discipline-specific writing conventions. Severe problems with grammar, usage, and
mechanics show poor control of English language and impede understanding.
Appendix 6
EVALUATION OF ASCRC WRITING RETREAT, April 12, 2013
Your name (optional) ___________________________________________
Please respond to this evaluation. Your comments will help the ASCRC Writing Committee
write its 2013 report and will assist in our implementation of next year’s program assessment of
writing-approved courses. Thank you.
A. Please check the statement that best reflects your knowledge and experience using rubrics to
assess writing before this retreat.
__14__1. I have created and used rubrics to assess students’ writing.
__2__2. I knew about rubrics, but have not used them regularly in my assessment of students’
writing.
____3. I did not know about rubrics for assessing students’ writing.
B. Please place a check in the column that represents your opinion.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
No
Opinio
n
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. This retreat helped me understand and
apply a holistic rubric to students’ writing.
13
3



2. This retreat helped me assess students’
writing accurately and efficiently.
10
6



3. This retreat was a valuable professional
development experience for me.
13
3



4. I would recommend this retreat to my
colleagues.
13
3



C. Please write your responses to these two questions. Feel free to continue your responses on
the back of this page.
1. What aspects of this retreat were most useful for you?
 Listing the training paper scores on the white board




















learning about the rubric and seeing how the writing committee and colleagues
interpreted and applied it
The afternoon work was fascinating – it was really helpful for me to learn from the other
writing teachers in my group
We are designing a WRIT 101 assessment project for next year. So I appreciated being
part of the norming process and the discussions and strengths of types of rubrics. Even
more important, though, were the discussion son papers and the wrap-up conversation
about the rubric and assessment process.
As usual, the opportunity to discuss strengths and weaknesses of various pieces of student
writing was VERY valuable. Everyone who teaches a class with a writing component
should have to attend.
To gain an understanding of what is expected from student writing overall.
I continue to find it very useful to mill over the wide variety of writing skills and
practices.
The conversation
Reading a range of student writing
The opportunity to discuss student writing with colleagues from different disciplines
The opportunity to normalize my expectations and evaluations
The opportunity to see the range of assignments, approaches, and topics used to fulfill the
requirements for approved writing courses
Reading papers and discussing
The discussion
Linking the rubric to the learning outcomes of approved w courses not the assignment
Focused practice with experienced colleagues
Good preparation - not too much to do
Excellent coordination
Besides the networking it helps remind me to look at the big picture with student writing
besides focusing on the little stuff (i.e. grammar and citations) which can drive me crazy
Conversations about student writing and hearing my colleague’s opinions. Looking at
actual student work to evaluate writing. This is very practical and informative
The opportunity to recalibrate my assessment tools.
2. What might be changed to improve this retreat?
 More multi-reader (more than five) assignments
 Lots of papers – a bit of reading fatigue
 Schedule earlier in the semester when time and energy are higher
 Lunch could be shorter
 Reminder before scoring – students taking an approved writing course may not have
ANY experience understanding / knowledge of the discipline… for example. Student
writing a literary analysis with no previous experience or expertise.
 Bigger groups/tables so as to generate more scores per paper
 Adapt the rubric: Change “purpose” to “assigned purpose”
 Somehow encourage (insist upon)
 Can’t think of anything





More table space
I ran out of steam for reading papers somewhere in the second group. A norming
discussion might go well as a break of 10 minutes.
As we build training papers, this will get better and better.
More TT faculty – train the trainer
Mix up or add groups together so that you are able to hear from a greater diversity of
colleagues.
Other
 The collaborative nature of this retreat is its strength, so I think it functions great as it is.
I loved our final discussion especially. So be sure lots of time is left for that. This was a
terrific experience and I was happy to be part of it.
 Great smacks. Well organized. Very collegial
 Good transition from last year, especially with the rubric already developed
 We can get bogged down in discussion but Beverly was good at keeping us moving.