ASCRC Writing Committee Minutes, 2/15/11
Members Present: G. Burns, M. Medvetz, T. Russell, M. Semanoff, K. Zoellner
Members Excused/Absent: J. DeSoto, N. Hinman, P. Silverman
Ex-Officio Members Present K. Ryan, K. Webster
The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m.
The minutes from 2/8/11 were amended and approved.
Business Items:

The Committee briefly discussed the revised upper-division writing form.
Several revisions were made and the form (appended below) was approved.

The Committee reviewed the alternatives to the current UDWPA in the executive
summary of the Report on Writing Assessment practice.
1. Continue large-scale individual writing assessment
 Analytic scoring Changing the current holistic scoring procedure would begin
to address the desire for an assessment practice that serves a guiding function.
The amount of effort required for analytic scoring is significantly greater than
the effort required for holistic scoring. Analytic scoring would require not only a
reallocation of already scarce resources but also access to additional resources.

Portfolio assessment Portfolio assessment is a potentially effective form of
mid-career student assessment intended to fulfill a gating function. Although
portfolio assessment is perhaps the most forward-thinking and philosophically
sound version of writing assessment to date and alleviates the timed, one-shot
dilemma, it is difficult to develop, complicated to manage, and expensive to
administer.
2. Discontinue large-scale individual assessment and redirect resources to new initiatives
 Redirecting the funds and time The Writing Center (TWC) commits to the
UDWPA would allow TWC to build new initiatives that effectively serve the
development of student writers and to provide faculty and programs with
curricular support for the teaching and learning of writing.
3. Implement formative program-level assessment
 Formative programmatic assessment would look at the entire writing curriculum
in order to make informed adjustments and revisions to that curriculum, affecting
positive changes in the teaching and learning of writing.
Director Webster prefers that option 2 no longer be considered because
administering the exam is currently running at a deficit so eliminating the exam
would not free- up resources. Analytic scoring would not solve the invalid
instrument issue and would be much more expensive and time consuming to
administer. Portfolio Assessment would require resources and personnel.
Formative program-level assessment would assess the work that is already taking
place to determine what is working and where improvements are needed. It is
aligned with best practices and would apply learning outcomes that are embedded
in current work. Some may argue that it does not hold students accountable.
However, the current UDWPA is not a value added mechanism and a timed
writing exam does not reflect how writing is taught in the classroom.
Faculty would need to understand the objectives of the assessment. The
assessment is not a critique of the faculty members’ work. It would likely involve
a random sampling of students writing in various writing courses- collecting
current assignments. The assessment would be done by faculty that teach the
courses in order to complete the feedback loop. Various assessment models are
available on The Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA) website at:
http://wpacouncil.org/assessment-gallery .
Associate Provost Walker-Andrews has made it clear that if the UDWPA is
eliminated it must be replaced with some other assessment mechanism.
It may be possible for the University to hire a consultant from WPA to evaluate
the writing program. The university would need to be strategic in using the
service to guide the program forward.
There is concern that faculty are weary of assessment. It is viewed as empty work.
The transition would require clear explanations to make the effort meaningful.
The discussion will continue next week.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:03 p.m.
Upper-division Writing Requirement Review Form (9/10)
I. General Education Review – Upper-division Writing Requirement
Dept/Program
Subject
Course # (i.e. ANTH
455) or sequence
Course(s) Title
Description of the requirement if it is not a single course.
II. Endorsement/Approvals
Complete the form and obtain signatures before submitting to Faculty Senate Office.
Please type / print name Signature
Instructor
Phone / Email
Program Chair
Dean
III. Type of request
New
One-time Only
Reason for new course, change or deletion
Change
Date
Remove
IV Overview of the Course Purpose/ Description
V Learning Outcomes: Explain how each of the following learning outcomes will be achieved.
Student learning outcomes :
Identify and pursue sophisticated questions for
academic inquiry
Find, evaluate, analyze, and synthesize
information effectively from diverse sources
(see http://www.lib.umt.edu/informationliteracy/)
Manage multiple perspectives as appropriate
Recognize the purposes and needs of
discipline-specific audiences and adopt the
academic voice necessary for the chosen
discipline
Use multiple drafts, revision, and editing in
conducting inquiry and preparing written work
Follow the conventions of citation,
documentation, and formal presentation
appropriate to that discipline
Develop competence in information
technology and digital literacy (link)
VI. Writing Course Requirements
Enrollment is capped at 25 students.
If not, list maximum course enrollment.
Explain how outcomes will be adequately met
for this number of students. Justify the request
for variance.
Briefly explain how students are provided with
tools and strategies for effective writing and editing
in the major.
Which written assignment(s) includes revision in
response to instructor’s feedback?
VII. Writing Assignments: Please describe course assignments. Students should be required to
individually compose at least 20 pages of writing for assessment. At least 50% of the course grade
should be based on students’ performance on writing assignments. Quality of content and writing
are integral parts of the grade on any writing assignment.
Formal Graded Assignments
Informal Ungraded Assignments
VIII. Syllabus: Paste syllabus below or attach and send digital copy with form.  For assistance
on syllabus preparation see: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/syllabus.html
The syllabus must include the following:
1. Writing outcomes
2. Information literacy expectations
3. Detailed requirements for all writing assignments or append writing assignment instructions
Paste syllabus here.