Undergraduate Academic Council Minutes
Meeting: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 from 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Room: LC 31 J.
Present: Nathaniel Cady, Sue Faerman, Rick Fogarty, Sue Freed, Karen Chico Hurst,
Trudi Jacobson, Linda Krzykowski, JoAnne Malatesta, Caro-Beth Stewart, Sandra
Vergari, Kathie Winchester, James Zetka
Guests: Ellen Weatherby, Bob Yagelski
Review of the minutes: September 19, 2012 approved with typographical
change
Chair’s Report:
After the last meeting, Fogarty sent the committee an email with links to
review information about Binghamton's writing program, which is fairly similar
in content to what the Strategic Plan Work Group on Undergraduate Education
has proposed for Albany.
Current business:
Discussion of the University Writing Proposal begun in the previous meeting
continued for the duration of this meeting. Bob Yagelski, a member of the
strategic plan implementation group that generated the proposal, was in
attendance in order to answer questions raised September 12 in more depth.
He provided additional historical perspective as a leading member of the
Writing Task Force in 2007. The report coming out of that group clearly
documented the need for change in writing instruction on the campus in order
to develop critical thinking and adequate writing skills as students moved
through college level work. The Strategic Plan Work Group picked up from
there. The committee was reminded that the key issue on the Strategic Plan
level was the need to improve student writing. Again, Yagelski stressed the
course is not about the mechanics of writing, and even successful writers at the
high school level are not prepared for what is expected of them at the college
level. He referred to consistent findings over several years for what he
considers the best secondary level writing test, The National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) (a.k.a. The Nation’s Report Card). In effect, eight
out of ten students perform at the “basic” (vs. “proficient” or “advanced”)
level of writing. Since only 2% of students enter college writing at the advanced
level, “testing out” on the basis of mechanics is not a sound concept since they
simply are not prepared to handle differences in discourse across disciplines
they haven’t been exposed to at the high school level. The classes are also
valuable as an “experience.” There is research data showing participation in
small classes helps retention and is a vehicle for student bonding.
Yagelski confirmed that the syllabus provided in the proposal was meant as an
example, not as a common curriculum across the program. The readings in the
syllabus are illustrative. He would expect individual instructors would play to
their own interests and that the director of the program would have an
influence on what shape instruction would eventually take. Certainly there is
potential for sections geared to special interests, or for individual departments
to develop sections based on discipline. The proposal attempts to balance the
level of specificity required to inform governance bodies examining the
proposal against a high-quality director’s ability to have flexibility and shape
how a program evolves with ongoing assessment. This applies both to
instruction and to staffing.
Yagelski fielded some of the questions raised at the prior meeting regarding the
issue of labor, and how this model compares to others. Balancing high quality
vs. costs, obviously full faculty teaching the sections is desirable but simply not
feasible. The vast majority of schools (some he named: Cornell, Duke, Hunter
College, University of Denver, the University of Colorado at Boulder, among
others) require introductory seminars, some do it on the cheap (with poorlypaid adjuncts and untrained graduate assistants), but there is precedent here
at UAlbany for teaching lines of the nature described in the proposal. There are
other models, and there is potential to incorporate other features into a
program implemented on this campus.
Fogarty concluded the meeting to suggest that he and Yagelski clarify some of
the wording in the proposal better to address some of the points the
committee members raised for clarification. An edited document may be
distributed by early in the week so that there is the potential that the
committee could vote on the proposal as early as the next meeting scheduled
for October 10, 2012.
Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m.