Writing Committee Annual Report, 2011-2012
Membership
Faculty Members
Beverly Chin, English (Chair) 2013
Gene Burns, HHP 2012
Laurie Franklin, Chem 2014
Cathy Corr, Applied Arts & Science 2014
Megan Stark, Mansfield Library 2014
Mathew Semanoff, MCLL 2013
Richard Sattler, Anthropology 2013
Student Members
Damara Simpson
Sally Peterson
Additional Representatives (Ex-Officio)
Arlene Walker-Andrews , Associate Provost
Ed Johnson, Registrar
Kelly Webster, Director, Writing Center
Amy Ratto-Parks, Interim Director, Composition Program
Ashby Kinch, Assessment Committee Liaison
Business Items
Annual Review of Writing Courses
In the fall three writing courses (two one-time only) and two upper-division writing courses were
approved. A course was added to Forestry’s distributed upper-division writing requirement and one
upper-division writing course dropped the writing designation. One additional upper- division writing
course was approved in the spring.
Other Writing Committee Business Items


English writing skills catalog language was aligned with the writing course guidelines and writing
course forms. See appendix 1.
The Committee sent a Writing Skills Advocacy Letter to the Provost after discussing Forestry’s
decision to restrict access to its Technical Writing Course to majors. Supporting letters from
Yolanda Reimer, Chair, Computer Science and Jim Burchfied, Dean, College of Forestry and
Conservation were included with the letter. Additional sections of Advanced College Writing (WRIT
201) could service the students that will no longer be able to take the Technical Writing Course, but
the English Department would need funds to hire a qualified instructor to teach the course.
The Committee received a response from the Provost that indicated discussions were taking place to
find a solution, but there is not a magical pool of funds to address the situation. Dean Burchfield
addressed the committee at the April 18th meeting. He met with the Provost and negotiated four
sections of Technical Writing (WRIT 222) which was inadequate to meet campus needs. As a
temporary solution, negotiations are taking place to allow HHP students to take the Technical
Writing Course (WRIT 121) at the College of Technology. The Writing Committee and Dean
Burchfield agree that more resources need to be directed to support writing instruction.
It is unclear what immediate actions the committee should take to improve the situation. One
suggestion was to take a resolution to the Faculty Senate endorsed both by ASUM and the Academic
Deans. This would make the problem more public. Such a resolution would need to include data
that provides evidence of the problem in terms of how many students are not being served by the
current course structure. WRIT 201 has had waiting lists and many students have not been able to
get into WRIT 222. The Writing Center also has requests from students and faculty for intensive
writing courses or workshops. The Library also has students desperate for writing assistance at its
reference desk. The School of Business also advised students to take WRIT 222. Advisors may have
additional input. The committee plans to create a position paper for presentation to the Provost
next semester.

The UDWPA Appeal Committee considered three appeals. All three received a non-passing. The
students subsequently re-took the exam and now qualify for the Special Arrangement re-write
option (procedure 202.70).

The committee considered developing a Global Leadership Initiative Writing Course, but decided to
postpone the effort until more is known about the sustainability of the program.
Program Level Assessment of Writing – Pilot project
The pilot project was suggested by Associate Provost Walker Andrews and has three components. The
first involves the collecting data from writing courses. The second component involves assessing
students work in lower-division writing courses. The third component involves assessment of the upperdivision writing at the department level.
The Pilot is designed to identify patterns of strengths and weaknesses of the writing program. The Pilot
will determine whether this type of assessment is logistically feasible. If the project seems sustainable
then the administration will look at eliminating the UDWPA and the redirect those resources. The intent
is to learn and fine tune assessment efforts to ultimately improve students’ writing.
The committee worked on the first and second phase of the pilot. A rubric, worksheet (see appendix 2)
and matrix were created to assess writing courses. The rubric was tested on 6 writing forms submitted
in 2009 (each form reviewed by two members) and three submitted this fall (each form reviewed by
three members). In the 2009 review follow-up was requested on 4 of the forms, 2 of the forms were
withdrawn from consideration. Information literacy follow-up was requested on two of the three forms
submitted fall 2011. After review of the follow-up information the score for information literacy
changed from a 1 to a 3. The three courses were approved for writing with scores of 2 and 3 in all
categories. A subcommittee will work with Camie over the summer to standardize the comment section
for future extraction capability and analysis. The worksheet will be used for rolling review of writing
courses starting next fall. The review should provide information about how well faculty members
understand the requirements in order to make modifications.
The second part of the project will assess whether student writing shows evidence of meeting learning
outcomes. An analytic rubric based on stated writing course learning outcomes and criteria was
created to assess students’ writing. Student assignments were placed on Moodle from a sample of 200
level writing courses. The first set of instructions allowed students to self-select the paper and upload;
51 papers were uploaded from 6 courses. Additional 79 papers were collected in the spring by
instructors from 4 courses. The instructors chose the assignment and collected all the papers
electronically and sent for uploading to Moodle. In the future it will be necessary to modify the call for
papers in order to gather a larger sample.
The rubric was used to assess a random selection of student papers at a Writing Retreat at the Double
Arrow Resort on April 27th. A total of 19 people attended the retreat (13 faculty, Associate Provost
Walker-Andrews, three representatives from the Writing Center, one PhD student, and a staff member).
Attendees were seated at tables of four. The table leader was a member of the Writing Committee.
Attendees were asked to review sample papers for Development of Ideas, Organization of Ideas,
Language Choices, Conventions, and Integration of Resources. There was a rich discussion regarding
the variances of scores, disciplinary differences, and assignment expectations. The rubric (see appendix
3) was modified as a result of the discussion. Tables were asked to come to consensus on the writing
trait scores for three papers. Attendees completed evaluations of the retreat. The aspect that
attendees found most useful was the discussion. Recommendations for improvement included more
time to read, fewer papers, and advanced access to the rubric and papers.
1. This workshop helped me understand and
apply an analytic rubric to students’ writing.
2. This workshop helped me assess students’
writing accurately and efficiently.
3. This workshop was a valuable professional
development experience for me.
4. I would recommend this workshop to my
colleagues.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
No
opinion
7
9
1
4
12
1
9
7
1
12
2
2
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Writing Committee Communication Items

The Writing Committee was provided with the Writing Center Annual Report (see appendix 4).

Several faculty responded to the Thank You Letter sent at the end of the term last year.

At the request of Associate Provost Walker-Andrews the committee considered the ramification s of
BOR policy 301.5.5 in terms of common course numbering equivalencies with writing courses.
Common coursed numbers are not likely to be reviewed at other campuses for fulfilling writing
requirements. Students transferring within the MUS system with a common course that is a writing
course at UM are advised to file an appeal with the Graduation Appeals Committee from the
admissions evaluation. There needs to be a clear mechanism for transfer students to understand
the requirements and know what they are missing long before they file for graduation.
Appendix 1
Catalog Language Revision
Group I: English Writing Skills
The ability to write effectively is fundamental to success in academic, professional, and
civic endeavors. Specifically, a student should be able to:









Use writing to learn and synthesize new concepts;
Produce focused writing that is developed, logical and organized
Formulate and express written opinions and ideas that are developed, logical,
and organized;
Compose written documents that are appropriate for a given audience,
purpose, and context;
Revise written documents work based on constructive feedback;
Develop competence in information literacy, information technology and digital
literacy;
Find, evaluate, and use information effectively and ethically
Begin to use discipline-specific writing style and citation conventions;
Demonstrate appropriate English language usage.