ASCRC Writing Subcommittee Minutes 10/26/05

Members Present: H. Bruce, V. Hedquist, N. Hinman S. Justman, A. McKeown, M. Medvets, D. Stolle, L. Venetz, R. Welsh

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon, N. Mattina, K. Ryan, A. Walker-Andrews

Chair Hedquist opened the meeting at 9:05AM with a poem entitled Advice to Writers by Billy Collins.

Members introduced themselves.
The minutes were approved.

Communications:

· Chair Hedquist alerted the committee to the current writing course criteria. Although the practice has been to require revisions, the criteria actually allows for no revision if there are at least three graded assignments with written comments on the quality of the students writing as well as the content.

· The Graduation Appeals Committee agreed that the Writing Center should serve as part of the screening process with regard to appeals to waive the UDWPA requirement.

· The second UDWPA was offered last Saturday. Grading will start tonight. Nancy Mattina scanned a few of the exams and commented that they appear to be well written.

Old Business:

· Associate Registrar Laura Carlyon compared the UDWPA passing rate for students with visas entered into Banner and those without. Students with visas had a 16% fail rate compared to the general student population with a 17% fail rate. The request to consider a two tiered system from the President was addressed to the Provost. Therefore, the committee chair will send a letter to Provost Muir explaining that the committee considered the data, available assistance, and current considerations given to non-native speaking students in regard to the UDWPA and does not support a two –tier grading system at this time.

· A subcommittee to evaluate appeals to UDWPA scores was established. Nancy Hinman, Stewart Justman, and Mark Metvetz agreed to serve on the committee. Nancy Mattina will contact them to coordinate exam evaluation training. In the past the task belonged to the Provost’s Writing Committee. Currently there is a statement on the UDWP website that directs students to the Associate Provost for appeals to scores on the exam.

After the committee establishes its functions and processes, it might consider drafting bylaws and procedures to be included as a standing committee of the Faculty Senate. This will assure future continuity.

New Business:

· The committee discussed how to proceed with the review of the writing courses. The courses have been divided into three groups with approximately an equal number of courses in humanities, schools, science and social science. Each group should be reviewed by two faculty members.

Group 1	Heather Bruce Darrell Stole
Group 2	Stewart Justman Nancy Hinman
Group 3	Mark Medvetz Ashley McKeown

Courses should be evaluated according to the current criteria and the proposed criteria. The work groups should keep track of courses that meet, exceed, or do not meet the proposed criteria and why, as well as any issues with courses not meeting the current criteria. The work groups will then present a consent agenda of courses that meet the current writing designation and bring any issues it feels should be discussed to the full committee. Work groups may contact instructors for clarification on items or resolution on courses with discrepancies to the current writing criteria.

The goal of the review is not only to assure that courses are meeting the current criteria but also to look to the future of the writing program. If the committee supports adoption of the proposed criteria it would then be responsible for implementation. The lists would then come in handy to contact departments needing to revise their courses. The work groups should also consider whether the same criteria should be applied to courses that meet the upper-division departmental writing requirement. It is hoped that the actual review will determine the direction the committee should take with regard to the criteria. Are these courses adequately preparing students to pass the UDWPA?

There are still several courses that have NOT been submitted for review. The committee determined the best course of action would be for Chair Hedquist to send a letter to the academic deans explaining the review and efforts made thus far to collect the materials and request that they follow-up with their departments for submission by 11/4/05. Materials will be posted to the web site (http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/Curriculum/Sum/w_courses.htm) as they arrive.

The committee was not concerned that courses meeting the requirement for the upper-division departmental writing requirement appeared in the general writing course list.

The review needs to be completed prior to the 12/8/05 Faculty Senate meeting in order to get any changes into the catalog. Thus, a meeting was set for November 16^th that was later changed to November 9^th.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 AM.