ASCRC Writing Subcommittee Minutes, 10/4/10
Members Present: G. Burns, N. Hinman M. Medvetz, T. Russell, M. Semanoff, P.
Silverman, K. Zoellner
Members Excused/Absent:
Ex-Officio Present: K. Ryan, K. Webster
The meeting was called to order at 11:10 p.m.
The minutes from 9/20/10 were approved.
Communication:

Members introduced themselves and the new student member, Julie DeSoto was
welcomed to the committee.

Professor Medvetz will circulate the draft letter regarding accommodations for
ESL students. Last year the Committee deliberated on the issue and
recommended a general university policy be established.

There are 4 writing courses, 8 upper-division writing courses, and 2 additions to
upper-division distributed model to review.
Business Items:

Committee member assignments were distributed. Student member DeSoto will
be added to group 1. Committee members should review the forms and confer
any questions or concerns via email. If follow-up is needed, Chair Semanoff
should be notified and he will communicate to the requestor. He will check with
Anthropology and Dance to determine whether the 300 level courses are to be
considered for an upper-division writing course rather than a writing course.
The Committee agreed that the learning outcomes for writing courses should be
included on syllabi.

The Committee discussed the charge and the proposal to become a standing
committee. ASCRC had several concerns in February 2009 (below), but it
seemed that these held the Writing Committee to a different standard (requiring a
formal articulation of how accomplishing responsibilities) than other standing
committees of the Faculty Senate. Procedures should not be detailed in the
bylaws. In fact one of the goals of ECOS’ redesign of the bylaws is to remove
procedures and create a separate procedural manual.
The Charge was revised as follows and will be presented to ASCRC tomorrow for
consideration.
The Writing Committee consists of seven faculty members and two
students. One faculty member must also be on ASCRC to serve as a
liaison; one member must be from the English Department; one from the
College of Technology Writing Studies Program; one from the Mansfield
Library and one each from Humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences, and
Professional Schools. The committee may also have ex officio, nonvoting
members representing the Writing Center, the Composition Program, and
the Registrar’s and Provost’s offices.
The primary responsibility of the Writing Committee is ongoing
evaluation and assessment of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
writing requirements and criteria. The Writing Committee acts as an
advocate for effective writing, proposes revisions to the requirements and
criteria, and reviews writing course proposals. The Committee monitors
the Writing Proficiency Assessment procedures, results, and appeals. The
Committee acts in an advisory capacity to the Writing Center.

Committee members were sent the full Writing Center Report. Further discussion
was not necessary.

The UDWPA Appeals Committee procedures drafted by Director Webster were
approved. She will document the current practice for UDWPA Special
Arrangements for the Committee to consider. Chair Semanoff will draft the
procedure for the review of writing courses.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Excerpt from ASCRC minutes, 2/17/09:
ASCRC discussed the proposed bylaw change that would give the Writing Committee
permanent status. It was questioned whether the committee should be independent of
ASCRC and whether there was coordination with the General Education Committee.
Professor Zoellner will communicate ASCRC's concerns to the Writing Committee Chair
(see response below).
ASCRC Response to Writing Committee's proposed bylaws Amendment
February 17, 2009 - Kate Zoellner's Notes
Overall - ASCRC wants a richer rationale for the need for standing committee status for
the Writing Committee, as well as answers to several questions, listed below. ASCRC
thinks that the bylaw amendment draft needs to better connect the role of the Committee
with General Education and provide more details/clarity on committee processes and
roles.
The role of the Committee as an "advocate" was questioned. Yet, this language is
included in the bylaws for the General Education Committee... The evaluation of writing
courses and writing course criteria - outside of W designation courses - was questioned.
Camie clarified that this was part of the regular 3-year-cylce of General Education course
reviews.
Writing Committee Charge Questions:
Charge Item
Status
Assure the effectiveness of the writing program How? What is being evaluated and how?
Review for acceptability all W course proposals Continuous
Review and approve WPA test vehicle
Is this happening? If so, how/process? How
often?
Monitor WPA results
Is this happening? If so, how/process? How
often?
Develop criteria for writing courses
Completed
Consider appeals to WPA scores
Is this happening? If so, how/process? How
often?
Act in an advisory capacity to the Writing
How is this happening? Is it happening?
Center
What action/process does it take? Does
advice need to feed through ASCRC?
Writing Committee Bylaw Amendment Draft Questions, in addition to those related to
the Committee charge above:




Committee membership: ASCRC recommends that the COT Committee member
be from Writing Studies
How does the Committee advocate for the writing program?
What will be the appointment process for Committee members? And, the term of
service?
What will be the meeting requirements (i.e., frequency)?