ASCRC Writing Deliberations (
Teaching and assessment of undergraduate writing
are among the most controversial issues at UM.
Almost every forum for discussion of the “writing dilemma” triggers
heated debate, much of which focuses on only one or two aspects of the writing
curriculum.
Key Issues:
1. All UM
students must develop effective writing skills. These skills are described in
the UM catalogue.
2.
Students enter the UM with widely varying writing abilities. The writing curriculum should address the
diverse needs of students, from developing a minimal skill set in poor writers
to strengthening the work of good writers.
3.
Development of student writing skills.
The primary mechanism for
teaching writing skills is the required course ENEX 101, Composition.
Writing skills are further
developed in two required W (writing) courses and other non-W courses that
include writing assignments. These
courses can help a student practice and polish writing skills, but they are not
designed to teach composition.
4.
Assessment of student writing skills.
grades in
ENEX 101
grades in
two W (writing) courses, at least one of which must be an upper division course
grades in
other courses that require writing on exams or papers, but that are not
designated as W courses
WPA (writing proficiency
assessment)-the “gating exam” required for graduation
Composition 101, writing courses in various
academic disciplines, and the WPA require
overlapping, but not identical skill sets.
For example, Composition deals with grammar, sentence structure,
paragraph organization and logical development of ideas. Writing courses deal with the subject matter
of specific disciplines, and may address issues of style that are specific to
the discipline; composition is a secondary issue. The WPA tests reading comprehension, critical
thinking and composition.
This exposure to different aspects of writing is a strength of the existing writing curriculum.
5. ENEX
classes are significantly larger than ideal for development of strong writing
skills.
Classes average 25 (?) students.
If an instructor has a full-time load, 5 sections, and spends 15 minutes
per student per week (on reading, grading and discussing the student work),
s/he spends 31.25 hours on these activities.
Assuming 3 meeting hours per week per section (15 hours) and 4 hours of
preparation time, the load is >50 hours per week.
6. The
current writing curriculum provides adequate development and assessment of
writing skills for many students.
Many students pass the WPA on
the first attempt (~~50%)
Many students produce
well-written papers and exams in upper division courses.
7. The
current writing curriculum fails to provide adequate development of writing
skills for many students.
Many students do NOT pass the
WPA after several attempts (data have been difficult to gather, see below).
Many students produce very
poorly written exams and papers in their upper division courses.
8. The
current requirements for general education and writing, combined with courses
required for accreditation of specific programs, max out the required credits
for many programs. Therefore, additional
writing courses will be implemented at the expense of other requirements in
general education or the writing curriculum.
9. There
is very little data that addresses how well the existing writing curriculum
meets the specific writing goals.
Gathering this type of data is a nontrivial
exercise. Selecting data from Banner has
been difficult, even for simple questions like “what is the pass rate for
students taking the WPA for the first, second and third time?” The Registrar’s Office and the Office of
Academic Affairs have been working on procedural changes in the administration
of the WPA that will allow for collection of more useful data.
10. Data
that have been gleaned from recent rounds of the WPA do indicate some specific
problems.
Most students are not
preparing carefully for the exams. For the first WPA of spring 2005, ~1100
students signed up to take the exam; only 578 (53%) students actually took the
exam, and only ~100 students (17.3% of students who took the exam) attended a
workshop or visited the Writing Center to prepare for the exam.
Most students who fail to
pass the exam are not taking advantage of opportunities to correct problems
before the next attempt.
Of 985 students taking the exam in the fall (
The system allows students to
delay taking the WPA until they are seniors, at which point it is difficult to
address problems. The registration block
has not worked as a disincentive; it is cumbersome to administer and students
often sign up for a WPA to move past the block and then fail to take the exam.
11. The
generally poor preparation of students for the WPA makes it difficult to draw
any conclusions from the pass rates for this exam. It would be ill-advised to propose major curriculum
changes until effective incentives/disincentives are in place to ensure that
the majority of students sitting for the WPA have prepared for the exam. At that point, the WPA will be a better
indicator of which students have developed appropriate reading, critical
thinking and writing skills.
There are risks to implementing major curriculum
changes, including:
implementation of changes
that do not improve student performance because we do not understand the scope
of the problem
implementation of changes
that have serious negative consequences for other parts of the curriculum
significant budget
and staffing repercussions
Students are less likely to take the writing
curriculum seriously if it undergoes frequent major overhauls.
12. It has
been suggested that UM should require a second composition course for all
students delivered through the English Department or distributed across
departments.
This is not a good use of
limited resources. Not all students need
a second composition course. Strong
writers are unlikely to polish their skills in a class in which many students
are stilling working on fundamentals.
Most importantly, students
who have not reached a moderate level of competence by taking ENEX 101 and one writing
course will benefit only marginally from a second course in which they receive
a few minutes of feedback per week from the instructor (see item 5 above).