ASCRC Minutes 5/7/13
GBB 202, 2:10 p.m.
Members Present: B. Borrie, G. Coon, J. Deboer, L. Gillison, N. Greymorning, C. Henderson, S.
O’Hare, D. Stolle, T. Thibeau, N. Vonessen
Members Absent/ Excused: C. Chandler, B. Holzworth, M. Grimes, M. Hopkins, J. Zink
Ex-Officio Present: N. Hinman, E. Johnson
Guest: B. Chin, J. Renz
The minutes from 4/30/13 were amended and approved.
Communication Items:

Faculty Senate Chair Jeff Renz stopped by to thank committee members for their work this
year.

The Writing Committee Chair Beverly Chin provided a brief update and foreshadowing of its
future plans. After ASCRC received the Writing Committee’s Report on Writing Assessment
in 2010 it made the following recommendation:
ASCRC appreciates and endorses the Writing Committee’s recommendations
regarding writing assessment. However, the implementation of the recommendations
will require more information regarding how program level assessment will work.
Therefore, ASCRC directs the Provost’s Office in collaboration with the Office of
Student Success and the Writing Committee to develop pilot project proposals by fall
2011. These proposals should indicate how assessment will be conducted, who will
conduct the assessment, how much faculty time will be involved, and actions that
might be taken to improve students’ writing as a result.
The Writing Committee has been working for two years on phase 1 and 2 of the pilot project
in addition to completing its other business – review of new writing courses and a rolling
review of a quarter of existing writing courses. This year a Writing Symposium was given
in the fall addressing rubrics, feedback, and revision. Last year a rubric was developed and
tested to assess writing courses for phase 1. This year data was collected using the rubric.
The Committee identified that there was confusion regarding information literacy and
therefore offered a retreat in the spring. Phase 2 of the pilot involves collecting random
samples of students writing in approved writing courses and applying a rubric. Last year an
analytic rubric was created and tested at a retreat with 19 participants. It was apparent that
the rubric was problematic given the lack of consensus scoring and the time involved scoring
separate components of students writing (Development of Ideas, Organization of Ideas,
Language Choices, Conventions, and Integration of Resources). This year a holistic rubric
aligned with the learning outcomes of writing courses was developed and used to identify
anchor and training papers. It had 4 score points (Advanced, Proficient, Nearing Proficiency,
and Novice). Again 19 participants attended a retreat and scored 47 papers after reviewing
anchor and training papers with annotations. Phase 3 of the Pilot was managed by the
Provost’s Office and involves assessing students writing in the discipline. Departments that
agreed to participate developed rubrics and either have or are in the process of applying them
to students writing in capstone assignments. This information is then added to the
departments’ assessment report which identifies areas of improvement and steps taken to
address the deficiency.
The Writing Committee proposes to fully implement the pilot in place of the UDWPA, which
does not benefit students or departments. Over time this form of assessment improves
writing instruction through faculty participation in using the rubrics and attending faculty
development opportunities on the deficiencies identified in the assessment process. Associate
Provost Walker-Andrews informed the committee that there will not be funds for the pilot to
continue until the UDWPA is eliminated. In this case the exam would be eliminated once
approved by the Senate. There would not be a delay for the change to be published in the
catalog. The Writing Committee intends to have a final report on the pilot available for
ASCRC to consider early fall.
There were concerns regarding the timeline of phase 3 and the need for quantifiable data
showing improvement in students writing. Not all programs will have developed assessment
when the UDWPA is eliminated. The UDWPA was intended to be an indicator of students’
readiness to take the upper-division writing course in their major. Phase 1 and 2 assess
approved writing courses and students writing in those courses. The approved writing course
is taken prior to the UDWPA. Once the Faculty Senate approves the elimination of the
UDWPA, funds may be reallocated to support full implementation of programmatic writing
assessment.

Professor Vonessen drafted a summary document of the Cyberbear Course Descriptions for
presentation at the Faculty Senate. It is possible to have direct links to all courses offered
with a given prefix rather than linking to the search engine.

ASCRC agreed that the annual report could be edited to include the action taken by the
Faculty Senate on the Technical Course motion and Academic Policies and Procedures
Catalog language.

Efforts of the Study Skills and Early Alert Workgroups will continue next semester.

ASCRC was informed that GEO 225 requires a revised title because of CCN confusion at
OCHE. This will be considered an editorial change.
Good and Welfare

Chair Borrie thanked members for a productive year. Student member Coon was also
thanked for her service on the Graduation Appeals Committee.

Registrar Johnson received a request from a Dean to consider rethinking timelines for
completing curriculum review. All the changes should be made to the catalog in time for
preregistration April 15th. Currently the catalog is published June 15th.
The meeting was adjourned at 3.20 PM