The Wild Rumpus: Building
Successful Writing Programs
Through Professional Development
Our “double-whammy” Wild Rumpus consists of two sessions where ideas will come fast and discussion will be exciting and energizing. Please join us and . . .
Using Community to Promote
Professional Development in WID
Programs
Joel Wingard
Moravian College
“small” faculty (
115, for
1580 students)
“small” campus (although split in two)
veteran professor is WAC/WID director
interdisciplinary GenEd and FYS committees
new “WIDOC” also interdisciplinary -talking to departments
faculty development workshops every May
“resources for writing teachers” annotated bibliography http://www.joelwingard.com/
Blackboard site for FYS planning http://blackboard.moravian.edu/webapps/portal/f rameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2F webapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flaunc her%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4231_1%
26url%3D
An Intensive Faculty Enrichment
Program for Full-time Instructors in an Independent Writing Program
Donna Nelson-Beene
Bowling Green State University
General Studies Writing Program
Bowling Green State University
General Studies Writing
(GSW)
◦ University’s independent first-year writing program
◦ Serves approximately 4000 students each semester
◦ Teaching staff of 41 instructors and 50+ graduate assistants
General Studies Writing Program
Features of portfolio assessment which promote program coherence, standards, collaboration—and ongoing professional development
• Student writing
• Standardized rubric and audience sheets
• Standardized student process analysis
• Narrative self-reflection
General Studies Writing Program
Program Requirements for
Instructors
• Electronic teaching
Portfolios
• Teaching philosophy statements
• Observation triads
• Service expectations
General Studies Writing Program
Ownership of the program
Instructors have a voice
Committee participation
◦ Learning Outcomes and
Assessment
◦ Textbook Approval
◦ Technology
◦ Placement Prompts
◦ Think Tanks
◦ Merit Evaluation
◦ Writing Awards
◦ Search Committees
General Studies Writing Program
Professional development within the program
Faculty development workshops
Regular meetings
Workshop presenters
Extensive Blackboard site
GSW manuals
Summer retreats
General Studies Writing Program
Dr. Darby Lewes, Lycoming College:
(English professor by day; dog trainer by night) text
Professional development opportunities across campus
Faculty learning communities
Workshops
University committee work
Teaching in residential learning communities
Linked courses
Campus events
General Studies Writing Program
4/11/2020
When the mentoring of non-tenure track faculty is intentional, ongoing, and multifaceted, instructors not only become strong and empowered educators, but they become leaders on campus and within the discipline .
General Studies Writing Program
• Involvement in university initiatives
• Teaching for other units on campus
• Leadership on university committees
• Presence at professional conferences
• Award winners
Engaged Assessment:
Involving PTF, GTAs, and
Lecturers
Gwen Gorzelsky
Wayne State University
CWPA Conference
Baton Rouge, LA July 2011
Wayne State University (WSU)
Program Context
• Basic Writing (40 sections), FYC (50),
Intermediate Writing (30), 2 technical writing courses (10)
• WAC: Writing Intensive (WI) course in major
• Instructors: GTAs (30), PTF (50), F-T lecturers (5)
• External assessment 10 years ago
• Limited internal assessment W 2006: 30
FYC portfolios —competency in limited range of genres (reflective, interpretive)
• New curriculum 2007 – 2009: FYC focus = argument; Intermediate Writing focus = preparation for WI courses
• Call for assessment fall 2010: disciplinespecific
• Learn whether and to what extent students are transferring writing-related skills and knowledge
• Involve instructors substantively at all stages
• Close the loop: use assessment findings to improve curriculum, pedagogy, professional development
• Assessment: Broad (2003; 2009); O’Neill,
Moore, and Huot (2009)
• Transfer: Bergmann and Zepernick
(2007); Downs and Wardle (2007);
Perkins and Salomon (1988; 1992);
Wardle (2009)
• Reflections and portfolios: Anson (1997);
White (2005); Yancey (1998); Robertson,
Taczak, and Yancey (forthcoming)
Initial Assessment: Approach and
Methods
• Beginning with the transition from
Intermediate Writing to Writing
Intensives
• One course per year (FYC 2012 -13;
BW 2013-14; tech writing 2014-15)
• Student surveys
• Student and instructor focus groups
• Instructor Dynamic Criteria Mapping
(DCM) sessions
• Designing and implementing
• Participating
• Interpreting and applying findings
• Creating a connected culture
• Using findings
Interpreting and Applying:
Orientation, Workshops,
Mentoring Resources
• Surveyed GTAs anonymously
• Asked Mentoring Committee to draw on informal interactions/own teaching experience
• Asked Assessment Committee to draw on assessment findings
• Held joint Mentoring and Assessment
Committee meeting to develop final lists
Interpreting and Applying:
Pilot Intermediate Writing Sections
• Testing Writing About Writing (WAW) curriculum and reflective curriculum: 2 WAW-only; 2 WAW + reflection; 2 control
• Meeting in July & Aug. to design syllabi and assignments
• Drawing on initial assessment findings: genre and audience in WI courses; sequenced assignments
• Drawing on O’Neill, Moore, and Huot: incorporating instructors’ interests and experience
• Using White’s Phase 2 approach – portfolio evaluation focused on reflective letters that document students’ achievement of learning outcomes
Creating a Connected Culture:
Role of New FYC Lecturer
Cohort
• Meeting regularly as a staff
• Piloting reflection assignments in FYC
• Acting as informal mentors for GTAs,
PTF
• Consulting on strategies for engaging
PTF
• Designing orientation and workshop sessions
Patricia Freitag Ericsson
Director of Composition
Washington State University
• About 200 sections of Composition courses serving 4500 students
• Taught by a mix of TA’s, Instructors, and other faculty
• TA’s have pedagogy, theory seminar
• Instructors have little support
• Support pedagogy
• Create community
• Foster awareness of program history
• Assure knowledge of WSU policies and programs
• Guest speakers who have contributed to WSU Composition Program
• Presentations by campus support units
• Pedagogy workshops
• Certificate provided to those who attended at least 10 sessions
• General Support:
• Ideas for Classroom teaching:
• Teaching goals more ambitious:
• Made me a better teacher:
84%
84%
52%
84%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf
• Felt welcome at sessions: 100%
• Found others who shared interests: 68%
• Developed friendships:
• Got to know others better:
60%
80%
• Feel positive about PDC experience: 88%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf
68% agree or strongly agree
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf
56% strongly agree or agree
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf
• Certificate was an incentive: 60%
• Certificate validated experience: 52%
All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf
The PDC Series provided a successful professional development foundation for Composition teachers.
Questions for Fall 2011
• How should we balance types of sessions?
• Should we continue with year-long themes for singlepresenter sessions?
• How do we handle policy sessions?
• Are certificates worthwhile?
Teaching Portfolios for Stronger
Program Assessment and
Professionalization
Edwina Helton
Indiana University East
Presented by Jeff Jones
Your questions and contributions