ASCRC Writing Subcommittee Minutes 1/26/07
Members Present: J. Carter, N. Hinman, M. Medvetz, E. Reamer
Members Excused/Absent: A. Harrison, V. Hedquist, C. Jacobson, A. McKeown, A. Walker-Andrews
Ex-Officio Present: N. Mattina, D. Micus, K. Ryan
Chair Hinman called the meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. when a quorum was present.
Approval of the minutes was postponed.
ECOS is still trying to find a replacement for Professor Justman.
The members from the English department will be late due to a departmental meeting.
The committee revisited the draft guidelines and made several revisions. Camie will send out the latest draft so members can make further recommendations at the next meeting. Items pending are: the definition of a writing task, explanation of the UDWPA, refinement of the upper-division writing course section, and further discussion of faculty support.
There was discussion regarding the rational behind ENEX 200 serving as a placement option and a writing course. Professor Ryan explained that the Arts and Science Dean asked Composition to pilot a program of placing students that scored higher on the placement exam in the second composition course rather than ENEX 101 because there have been anecdotal reports of student boredom. These students have been performing well in the second composition course (now ENEX 200).
The Committee should consider how a second placement option and its ramifications fit with the recommended changes to the writing program. It is confusing to have the course serve as both a writing course and placement option. There is also an issue with finding instructors with the expertise to teach in the various areas (science, business, social science). Some of the courses have had low enrollment. It may be that only one version of ENEX 200 is appropriate to be a placement option. Do there are still some issues that need to be worked through. Current catalog language gives students that test out of ENEX 101 the freedom to choose their writing course. Although there are relatively few students who test out of ENEX 101, the option should still be available as an incentive. The changed language does not allow for testing out and does not give the students a choice of writing course. Would these students fulfill the ENEX 101 requirement and a second writing course with ENEX 200? What are the criteria for placing students in 200?
The Committee agreed that catalog language would remain the same and not list ENEX 200 as a placement option for now. This issue will be revisited after the guidelines have been finalized. In addition, Professor Ryan is on a committee of the Board of Education working on guidelines for writing proficiency. It will be beneficial to consider the scope of how the various components fit within the program.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
The University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812