ASCRC Writing Subcommittee Minutes 10/25/06

Members Present: J. Carter, V. Hedquist, N. Hinman, C. Jacobson, S. Justman, M. Medvetz, A. McKeown, E. Reamer

Members Excused/Absent: A. Harrison, A. Walker-Andrews, N. Mattina

Ex-Officio Present: D. Micus, K. Ryan

The meeting was called to order at 4:12 p.m.

The 10/11/06 minutes were approved.

Communications:

^· ECOS recommends that ASCRC invite representatives from the various schools, the general education committee, and the writing committee to discuss the general education model. The working model has already caused panic in some departments and sending it out for wider distribution would not be productive.

^· Chair Hinman asked committee members whether they would be willing to meet in the science complex. Room 333 is a conference room and is equipped with technology. The committee was amenable to the room change.

Unfinished business was postponed for new business.

New Business:

· The workgroups discussed the various courses reviewed and recommended them for approval. The courses not only met the current writing criteria but fulfilled the intent of a writing course and were approved. There was some discussion regarding CS 295. The course seems like a lot of work. It was suggested that one of the workgroup members contact the instructor and offer friendly advice.

Workgroup 1	Workgroup 2	Workgroup 3
ENEX 200	ART 367-436	MUS 436
MCLL 210	MUS 437	CS 295
WTS 121	WTS120	COMM 421
COMM 424 MCLG 295	COMM 422 CS 295	SOC 441 PSC 195

Unfinished Business:

The committee’s most important task is fixing the writing criteria. The committee needs to fully understand the problems and keep in mind what the students need to learn. Other institutions have gone through the process and we can learn from them.

Chair Hinman went through the forums posted on Blackboard. She is hoping that members will make comments that will bring in institutional memory. Washington State University redesigned their general education with writing woven into all levels with a critical thinking rubric.

The Provost’s Writing Committee was reminded that the more writing required the fewer faculty willing to teach writing courses, so the committee spent a lot of time on the writing percentage and faculty load issue. The faculty need to be exposed to development opportunities that provide information on the many ways writing (not all graded) can be used for learning content.

It is difficult to require 50% writing on upper-division courses. It was asked whether it was necessary that lower- and upper-division courses have the same criteria. There is a reluctance to teach lower-division writing courses. There should be an incentive to teach these courses. If the university is committed to teaching writing than it has to articulate what students are to learn.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.