ENGLISH 1100 & 1200
FALL 2011
REMINDERS--SYLLABUS
1.
Make use of online resources:
http://www.ecu.edu/english/
2.
3.
Include course outcomes as
emailed on your syllabus
(SACS/FCIE Committee)
Link assignments to those
outcomes in your syllabus
Project 4: Writing to Persuade
For this assignment, you will locate 4-6 additional sources that address the question you raised for the
previous assignment. Following the guidelines in Writing: A Guide for College and Beyond you will then
compose an argument in response to the question.
Your goal in gathering these additional 4-6 sources is to become aware of some of the different
perspectives from which the question can be approached. You will need to find several perspectives
along a scale of perspectives; go beyond just “pro” and “con.”
You must also determine an appropriate audience and format for your argument. In other words, you
need to determine who should or would want to hear your argument and what form of writing (letter?
website? article? essay?) would be most effective in reaching that audience.
Your argument should be +/-1800 words, and you must turn in copies of your sources with your work. You
will also submit a brief cover letter with the final draft (details about this letter will be provided in class).
**I will not grade your project if you do not turn in drafts, copies of sources, and your cover letter. Failure to
submit peer review feedback will negatively affect your grade.






The red, underlined portions of this assignment description correspond to several of the outcome goals
for English 1100:
Discover significant questions to explore and address via writing
Explore the many different purposes of writing, including writing to reflect, analyze, explain, and
persuade
Practice drafting and revising
Increase your awareness of organizational strategies and your ability to apply them
Become attentive to how audience and purpose affect content, tone, and style
Incorporate sufficient and appropriate details and examples both from your experiences and from
secondary research
REMINDERS--SYLLABUS
Attendance—
3.

You must accept university-excused
absences (students are required to make up
work).
You cannot count absences before the day
that a student registers for the class.
 You should normally accept written
medical excuses from licensed medical
professionals.
 If you plan to have a system in which
students’ grades will suffer after a certain
number of absences, put this policy in writing
in the syllabus.

REMINDERS--SYLLABUS
4.
Office hours – 5 per week, regardless of # of
classes taught
5.
6.
New Retention Standards
WI Model (#1 Academic Writing)
REMINDERS—SYLLABUS/POLICIES
Disruptive Students/Class Conduct
5.
•
•
•
Provide, in writing, information about what
appropriate classroom behavior entails and what
it excludes.
Call campus security if students become
threatening or abusive in class or in your office.
For less aggressive, but still disruptive, behavior
follow the procedure outlined in the Faculty
Manual, Part V, Sect. Y (http://www.ecu.edu/csacad/fsonline/customcf/facultymanual/manual.ht
m
DISRUPTIVE ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR PROCESS
The Steps—An Overview
1.
Private verbal warning describing the behavior of
concern to the student, explaining that it is
inappropriate, and asking the student to stop
2.
Written warning indicating that the student will be
removed from the course if the behavior does not cease
3.
Discussion of the situation with the Department
Chair or designee.
4.
Meeting with student, Chair/designee, and
instructor, if it is decided to remove the student from
the course.
5.
Written notification of the decision to remove the
student from the class, with a copy forwarded to the
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities.
***Please see Part V, Section I-Y of the faculty manual
for more details.
REMINDERS—POLICIES/SYLLABUS
6.
Grade Appeals (Part V of Faculty Manual)
Appeals will not be considered unless based upon one
or more of the following factors:
 An error was made in grade computation.
 Standards different from those established in
written department, school or college policies, if
specific policies exist, were used in assigning the
grade.
 The instructor departed substantially from his or
her previously articulated, written standards,
without notifying students, in determining the
grade.
 Only the final course grade may be appealed.
 The grade assigned by the instructor is assumed to
be correct and the student appealing the grade must
justify the need for a change of the grade assigned.
OTHER REMINDERS



Library orientations in both 1100 and 1200
Thursday AM GTA meetings (9:30) in the
Studio (Bate 2005)—All are welcome!
Composition Committee Professional
Development Workshops—possible topics for
fall (dates & details forthcoming)
Integrating/Using Sources
 Teaching with Portfolios


First-Year Writing Studio
ASSESSMENT RESULTS—
INTEGRATING SOURCES
English 1200, Spring 2011
ENGLISH 1200 ASSESSMENT TOOL



Five-question, use-of-source quiz, administered to
20 sections of English 1200 at the start of the
semester and again at the end of the semester.
Same quiz/same assessment as Spring 2010. The
repeat was designed to test the impact of
meetings/workshops last AY.
Two-part questions
Identify if there is a problem (acceptable vs.
unacceptable use of source).
 If there is a problem, rewrite to fix it.

SAMPLE QUESTION
Original Source:
These two minds, the emotional and the rational, operate
in tight harmony for the most part, intertwining their very
different ways of knowing to guide us through the world.
—From page 3 of the book Emotional Intelligence by
Daniel Goleman
Use of Source:
According to Daniel Goleman, two different minds, one
emotional and one rational, function in close harmony
and mix their different ways of knowing to help us
through the world (3).
__Acceptable
_X_Unacceptable [Paraphrase is too close to the original]
Rewrite (if applicable):
CRITERION FOR SUCCESS
(FROM 2010 ASSESSMENT REPORT)

At the end of English 1200, students will
effectively identify improper source use 70% of
the time and partially or wholly correct source
use problems at least 70% of the time.
OVERALL IDENTIFICATION, ERROR, AND
KEY PRE-POST RATES--2011
Pre-test
Post-test
•58% correct
identification
•19% entirely correct
rewrites
•50% partially correct
rewrites
•2.1 rewrite errors per
quiz
•1.3 successful revisions
per quiz
•62% correct
identification
•31% entirely correct
rewrites
•43% partially correct
rewrites
•1.9 rewrite errors per
quiz
•1.7 successful revisions
per quiz
IDENTIFYING SOURCE-USE PROBLEMS2011
Percent correct identifications
per quiz item
#1 (improper paraphrase)
#2 (missing source information--author
and page)
#3 (improper paraphrase)
#4 (improper direct quotation)
#5 (correct-no error)
% Correct
% Correct PRE POST
37
37
82
88
34
39
46
52
86
90
ADDRESSING SOURCE USE PROBLEMS--2011
*NEW ANALYSIS THIS YEAR
Attempted revisions related to the
problem
PRETESTS
POSTTESTS
#1 (improper paraphrase)
#2 (missing source information--author and
page)
#3 (improper paraphrase)
#4 (improper direct quotation)
34%
39%
95%
98%
43%
43%
87%
80%
REVISIONS PER TEST BY TYPE--2011
Av. PRE
Av.
POST
1. Sufficient Restructuring or Rewording of Paraphrase to
Avoid Plagiarism
0.17
0.12
2. Effective Addition of Signal Phrase or Attribution to
Author/Source
0.68
0.82
Average # of Errors per Test by Type
ERRORS PER TEST BY TYPE--2011
Av. PRE
Av. POST
1. Improper Paraphrase--Wording or Structure
Too Close to Original
0.45
0.34
2. Insufficient or Improper Information for Intext Citation
0.58
0.48
Average # of Errors Per Test by Type
SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENT
POST-TEST COMPARISON
2010
2011
1. Sufficient Restructuring or Rewording of
Paraphrase
0.04
0.12
2. Effective Addition of Signal Phrase or Attribution to
Author/Source
0.87
0.82
Average # of Revisions per Test by Type
SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENT
POST-TEST COMPARISON
2010
2011
1. Improper Paraphrase--Wording or Structure Too
Close to Original
0.41
0.34
2. Insufficient or Improper Information for In-text
Citation
0.51
0.48
Average # of Errors Per Test by Type
SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENT
OVERALL IDENTIFICATION, ERROR, AND REVISION RATES
POST-TEST COMPARISON
Spring 2010
Spring 2011
60% correct identification
44% entirely correct
rewrites
28% partially correct
rewrites
1.9 rewrite errors per quiz
62% correct identification
31% entirely correct
rewrites
43% partially correct
rewrites
1.9 rewrite errors per quiz
1.7 successful revisions
per quiz
1.7 successful revisions
per quiz
LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT
Fewer post-tests—440 pre-tests and 385 posttests
 Decrease in student investment at the end of the
semester



Decrease in student investment in the task due
to lack of grade and decontextualized work.
No tracking of sections whose instructors
participated in the Professional Development
Workshop to see if that variable made a
difference.
LESSONS OF THE ASSESSMENT




Students seem to know something about
integrating sources at the end of 1100.
Students in 1200 are getting the message that
attribution is important but are still having
trouble determining what to put in in-text
citations.
Students still really struggle with the concept
and practice of paraphrase.
The emphasis on this issue of paraphrasing at
the last orientation meeting and the professional
development workshops on paraphrasing/citing
sources appear to have had little impact on
student performance on the quiz.
CURRICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS


Clarify for students what needs to be in a citation. Emphasizing the
purposes of citation might help. Feel free to use the slideshow in the
“class downloads” area:
http://core.ecu.edu/engl/fyw/writing/index.htm
Look at and discuss multiple examples of successful and
unsuccessful paraphrases, and do so at multiple points in the 1200
course.

Have students practice paraphrasing repeatedly, especially with
sources that they will be using in their 1200 assignments.

Incorporate graded “mini” assignments that include paraphrase
(mini-portfolio in 1100)

Devote class time to a peer review session and ask students to focus
particularly on source-use areas.


Have students complete the “Paraphrasing” tutorial currently being
developed by the composition program. This may be *required* in
the spring.
Use/review the quiz in class—a new one will be developed for the
next assessment cycle. Feel free to use the quiz file in the “class
downloads” area: http://core.ecu.edu/engl/fyw/writing/index.htm
ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Create an assessment that involves more
authentic student writing as the basis for
assessment.
 Track the variables/actions more carefully.
 Raise the bar for “entirely correct” revisions (aim
for 55% or higher entirely correct for repeat of
this assessment).
