The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

1. Writing Plan Cover Page Please fill in the gray areas on this form.

Oct 18, 2013

First Edition of Writing Plan

Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted summer/2010, First edition submitted spring/2008

Horticultural Science

WEC Unit Name

Horticultural Science CFANS

Department College

Eric Watkins Associate Professor

WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title

ewatkins@umn.edu 612-624-7496

Email Phone

Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Date: 10-14-13 If Vote: /

# yes # total

Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other- please explain): Electronic vote (unanmous by respondents; no dissenting voices at faculty meeting discussion)

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

2. Unit Profile: Horticultural Science Please fill in the gray areas on this form.

Number of Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty:

13 Professors

6 Associate Professors

1 Assistant Professors

Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major(s) Please list each major your Unit offers:

Total # students enrolled in major as of fall 2013

Total # students graduating with major AY 0#-##

Horticulture 56 33

Plant Science 17 NA

Food Systems f13 NA

Total:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WEC Process Date # participated / # invited

faculty discussion of draft 9-24-13 20 / 20

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

3. Signature Page Signatures needed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Please fill in the gray areas on this form.

Electronic signatures may be submitted in lieu of this page. If this page is submitted as a hard copy, please include a print out of the electronic signature chain here. WEC Faculty Liaison Eric Watkins Associate Professor

WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title

10-17-13

Signature Date Department Head/Chair

Emily Hoover

Professor

Print Name Title

Signature Date

Associate Dean Jay Bell

Associate Dean

Print Name Title

Signature Date

For College of Liberal Arts units only: CLA - Curriculum, Instruction, and Advising Committee approved Writing Plan on Date

Print Name Title

Signature Date

See attached approval

See attached approval

10/16/13 University of Minnesota Mail - approval needed for departmental writing plan

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=c8c73b046e&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=141c2ef81b37b2a8&dsqt=1 1/2

Eric Watkins <ewatkins@umn.edu>

approval needed for departmental writing plan

Jay Bell <bellx007@umn.edu> Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:22 PMTo: Emily Hoover <hoove001@umn.edu>Cc: Eric Watkins <ewatkins@umn.edu>

I approve as well

Jcb

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Emily Hoover <hoove001@umn.edu> wrote:

I approve - thanks Eric for your work

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Eric Watkins <ewatkins@umn.edu> wrote:Jay and Emily,

I need approval from both of you for the revised Horticultural Science Writing Plan (attached) aspart of the Writing-Enriched Curriculum project. I believe you can simply reply to this email withyour approval.

Thanks.

Eric

-- Eric WatkinsAssociate Professor, Turfgrass Breeding and GeneticsHorticulture Major CoordinatorDepartment of Horticultural ScienceUniversity of Minnesota338 Alderman Hall1970 Folwell AveSt. Paul, MN 55108 612-624-7496 (office)612-624-4941 (fax)ewatkins@umn.eduwww.turf.umn.edu

-- Sincerely,Emily HooverDepartment HeadProfessor, Distinguished Teaching Professor of HorticultureDepartment of Horticultural ScienceUniversity of Minnesota

10/16/13 University of Minnesota Mail - approval needed for departmental writing plan

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=c8c73b046e&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=141c2ef81b37b2a8&dsqt=1 2/2

305 Alderman Hall1970 Folwell AveSt. Paul, MN 55108Phone: 612-624-6220

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

4. Writing Plan Narrative Please retain section headers and prompts in your plan. Executive Summary (1-page maximum): For what reason(s) did this unit (department, school, college) become involved in the WEC project? What key implementation activities are proposed in this edition of its Writing Plan and what, briefly, is the thinking behind these proposed activities? If this is a second+ edition of this unit's Writing Plan, please describe activities that have been successfully completed and those that are new to this edition. The Horticultural Science faculty recognized that an ability to communicate effectively is essential for all students at the University of Minnesota. An idea alone is not sufficient; the idea must be communicated, often with writing, clearly and concisely to employers, colleagues, or other audiences. Writing hones thinking skills and makes it possible for ideas to spread throughout the community for discussion, debate and ultimately implementation. Our faculty also recognized that students do not enter our undergraduate major with all the writing skills needed for success in our discipline. By the end of the bachelor’s degree in Horticulture, every undergraduate should be a competent writer able to address professional and lay audiences. The WEC project began a dialogue within our department on writing expectations, about how we need to implement strategies for helping students use writing to both think and learn within the field of horticulture. In previous versions of our writing plan, we required a writing intensive 3xxx level course with an emphasis on writing lab reports. We then developed and began teaching a new writing-intensive version of our internship course (HORT 4096W) as a capstone course. Our faculty have identified that a major weakness in student writing, even in upper division courses, is the proper identification and use of sources in writing. The primary concern is that many students have trouble understanding the differences between primary and secondary sources and often struggle to know if a publication is peer-reviewed. In the 2012 rating of student writing, the writing ability related to sources was insufficient, especially for the capstone course (HORT 4096W). We believe this is a very important writing ability; therefore, we will focus our efforts in this area over the next few years. In this plan, we are proposing to do the following: (1) annually review of all writing intensive courses to ensure they are continuing to follow the requirements set forth by the campus writing board; (2) continue to improve HORT 4096W, which serves as a capstone writing experience for many students; (3) identify courses in our curriculum in which to target the instruction of identifying and properly using appropriate sources in multiple types of writing; (4) develop resources for use by our students related to identifying and properly using appropriate sources; (5) continue to evaluate student writing, with particular emphasis on the issue of proper use of sources in multiple types of writing. Section #1: DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC WRITING CHARACTERISTICS1*: What characterizes academic and professional communication in this discipline?

“What characterizes academic and professional communication in Horticultural Science? The results of the surveys of the different audiences agreed on a number of key concepts. These concepts were refined to the two lists presented below.

1 *Adjectives, or adjectival phrases are typically most useful here, for example, “transparent to logic,” (Nursing); “Analytic (versus

journalistic) and argumentative” (Political Science).

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

Areas of agreement across the different groups surveyed about writing in horticulture:

Organized in a logical sequence that is in accordance with scientific method,

Factually accurate, precise, and audience-sensitive in its use of scientific and technical terminology,

Appropriate and persuasive in the choice and integration of source information,

Transparent to logic and procedure, conveys replicable results,

Sensitive to needs and varied levels of disciplinary-sophistication of diverse audiences

Appropriate to its medium (posters, web, lab reports),

Integrated into the process of learning in horticulture,

Allows students to make new contributions based on established precedents,

Applies understanding to the real world through connections between what they have learned and what happens in practical settings,

Conforms to patterns of standard academic English. Areas translated into the horticulture curriculum:

Writing for scientific audiences includes: o Organizing writing using the scientific method o Using factual, accurate, and scientifically correct terminology o Conveying reproducible results o Conforming to patterns of standard academic English

Writing for lay audiences includes: o Conveying information at appropriate levels of scientific sophistication o Integrating numerous research-based sources o Using factual, accurate, defined scientific terms o Conforming to patterns of standard academic English

Writing to learn o Comparing sources of information o Making connections between academic and real-world situations

Section #2: DESIRED WRITING ABILITIES2**: With which writing abilities should students in this unit’s majors graduate? What should students be able to do in writing by the time they graduate? Conclusions from surveys point to the need for students in horticulture to be able to clarify an idea by moving beyond observation to analysis and conclusions based on data; to understand the scientific method by conveying replicable procedures; and to provide audiences with answers using scientific concepts and appropriate terminology. On surveys, faculty members, students, and professional affiliates agreed on the following key abilities:

Utilize grammar and mechanics that conform to patterns of standard academic English

Organize writing according to standard scientific reporting methods

Use factual and scientifically-correct terminology

Convey reproducible results

Convey information at appropriate levels of scientific sophistication based on target audience

2 **Verbs or verbal phrases are typically most useful here, for example, “Take a principled, not arbitrary position” (Geography); “Visually

represent designs and explain salient features of a part or concept” (Mechanical Engineering).

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

Identify and integrate appropriate research-based sources

Critically compare and contrast sources of information

Interpret and apply data by making connections between academic and real-world situations

Argue conclusions using data as evidence

The abilities students need to learn by the time the graduate with a degree in horticulture can be found in several different types of activities:

What should students be able to do in writing by the time they graduate?

Scientific reports

Extension materials

Essay exams

Paper > 8 pages

Writing to learn

Resumes, cover letters, Web pages

Synthesis of class material, journals

Utilize grammar and mechanics that conform to patterns of standard academic English

X X X X X X

Organize writing according to standard scientific reporting methods

X X

Use factual and scientifically-correct terminology

X X X X X X

Convey reproducible results

X

Convey information at appropriate levels of scientific sophistication based on audience

X X X X X

Identify and integrate appropriate research-based sources

X X X

Compare sources of information

X X X X X

Interpret and apply data by making connections between academic and real-world situations

X X X X X

Argue conclusions using data as evidence

X X X X X

Section #3: INTEGRATION OF WRITING INTO UNIT’S UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM: How is writing instruction currently positioned in this unit’s undergraduate curriculum (or curricula)? What, if any, structural

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

plans does this unit have for changing the way that writing and writing instruction are sequenced across its course offerings? With what rationales are changes proposed and what indicators will signify their impact? Since the last submission of our Writing Plan in 2010, we have developed a new writing-intensive course, HORT 4096W Professional Experience in Horticulture. This course is our required internship course offered as writing intensive. The course was offered for the third time in 2013. The course has been S/N and is not required. The course has gone well; however, ratings of student work done by a panel of raters concluded that the writing projects were not up to par when considered in the context of our departmental writing plan. It is clear that the S/N grading was allowing many students to pass without giving it their best effort. We have made a change to only allow A-F grading in this course, which should help increase the effort of students. We have also worked with the WEC staff on some changes to peer review and scaffolding of the final project that will be implemented in 2014. The involvement of other faculty in the teaching of this course could also result in new and better ways to teach important writing abilities. Our department is leading major changes in the undergraduate curriculum in the College of Food Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences. The Horticulture major is being phased out. In its place, two new majors have been formed—Plant Science and Food Systems. Since the structure of the undergraduate programs in which we are involved will now include input from multiple departments (Horticultural Science, Agronomy & Plant Genetics, Plant Pathology, Entomology, Applied Economics, Animal Science, Food Science and Nutrition, etc.), it may be more difficult to ensure proper sequencing of writing instruction for undergraduate students. A number of HORT designator courses are required for most of the students in both majors, so we will continue to focus on those courses. The introductory course for both majors is AGRO 1660; the instructors for this course are now teaching the course as WI and adding increased focus on identifying and integrating appropriate research sources in student writing. Students in the Plant Science major will also take HORT 3005W, which we changed to be writing intensive during a previous implementation of our Writing Plan. Finally, HORT 4096W fulfills an important experiential learning collegiate requirement for students in both majors so we will be able identify strengths and weaknesses in student writing throughout the curriculum. One potential problem we have identified regarding our writing instruction is that some of our WI courses have had multiple instructors over the past few offerings. In each case, the new instructor was not involved in the process of developing the course as WI (our most recent WI course, HORT 4096W, had greater input from a larger group of faculty). Although having new instructors teach WI courses can provide the benefit of new perspective, when there is a lack of consistency in instruction, there is a risk that the importance of writing instruction will change from year to year. In order to ensure that our WI courses teach writing according to the guidelines set forth by the Writing Board, we will begin a yearly review of our WI courses. The departmental Curriculum Committee will do this review—courses will be reviewed early in the semester before they are to be taught. Section #4: ASSESSMENT of STUDENT WRITING: What, if any concerns, have unit faculty and undergraduate students voiced about grading practices? How satisfied is the unit faculty that students are adequately familiar with writing expectations? What do these expectations look like when they are translated into grading criteria? (Please include a menu of criteria that can be offered to faculty / instructors for selective adapting where apt and used in the WEC team’s longitudinal rating process). What, if any, new grading systems or practices are proposed, whether for individual courses or for a program? We wrote the desired outcomes for our students’ writing abilities so that they could be readily used in grading rubrics. We will seek WEC support in this area by requesting a workshop on the use of grading rubrics. Previous

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

workshops have been conducted on grading writing, and developing good writing assignments; a workshop on developing and using rubrics would be a logical next step. Menu of criteria for writing abilities:

# The text…

1 Utilizes grammar and mechanics that conform to patterns of standard academic English

2 Is organized according to standard scientific reporting methods

3 Uses factual and scientifically-correct terminology

4 Conveys reproducible results

5 Conveys information at appropriate levels of scientific sophistication based on target audience

6 Identifies and integrates appropriate research-based sources

7 Critically compares and contrasts sources of information

8 Interprets and applies data by making connections between academic and real-world situations

9 Argues conclusions using data as evidence

Section #5: SUMMARY of IMPLEMENTATION PLANS and REQUESTED SUPPORT: Based on above discussions, what does the unit plan to implement during the period covered by this plan? What forms of instructional support does this unit request to help implement proposed changes? What are the expected outcomes of named support? What kinds of assessment support does this unit request to help assess the efficacy of this Writing Plan? What are the expected outcomes of this support? Our primary proposal is the development of strategically placed learning activities and writing assignments, as well as resources for students focused on the identification and proper use of sources. The ability to identify high quality sources, and then use them appropriately in multiple types of writing addresses several of our departmental writing abilities. For instance, a student would utilize sources when writing for a lay audience in a different way than when writing for a scientific audience (Ability #5). Once a source is identified, a student must learn how to use the information from that source effectively to make arguments (Ability #9). Faculty have identified this as a major deficiency in upper division undergraduate writing. A concerted effort throughout our curriculum is needed to address this issue. We are requesting funding to hire a graduate Research Assistant (25% during academic year plus one summer) as part of this project. One of the early tasks for this student will be to assess the current the status of instruction related to sources. This will involve review of syllabi for selected, relevant undergraduate courses taught in Horticultural Science. Other courses that are required for students in the new interdisciplinary majors (the Plant Science and Food Systems majors) will also be surveyed in order to ensure a full picture of how our

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

students learn this important ability. The RA will request syllabi for all courses, then follow up with individual faculty for discussions of how this topic is taught in a particular course. It will also be important for the RA to identify if instructors require these abilities, and determine if they have expectations of student knowledge in this area, and whether or not they offer guidance to students. This process will take place during summer 2014 (this will work well in our program since all of our faculty are on campus during the summer). We will seek to hire a graduate research assistant that has competency in the development of interactive online learning tools. The next step, occurring during fall semester 2014, will be for the RA to present the findings of the assessment to the departmental curriculum committee. The RA will then work with Tim Gustafson (WEC) and Julie Kelly (the horticulture subject librarian) to develop ideas for interactive, online tools that could be developed for use in our department, and other departments with similar needs. Working closely with the University Libraries will ensure we are not duplicating other internal efforts, and possibly provide a place to host the tool for broader dissemination. Next, the RA will present several options to the departmental curriculum committee, who will decide on which option to pursue. During spring 2015, the RA will develop the tool and update the departmental curriculum committee throughout the process (the RA will report to the Writing Liaison). Finally, once the tool has been developed, we will pilot the tool in HORT 4096W during summer 2015. After the pilot, we will survey students to determine changes that should be made to the tool. During this process, the RA, Tim Gustafson, and Julie Kelly, will develop and present a workshop to the Horticultural Science faculty related to the identification and proper use of sources in student writing. We propose this workshop to be held during fall 2014 between when the assessment results are reported and when the options are given for the online tool. This will provide another way for the RA to get feedback on promising options. We will assess if our changes are effective by continuing to have student writing samples collected and rated through the WEC processes that are in place. We will work with WEC staff to determine which courses to sample based on changes to the majors our department participates in. We expect that the writing ability related to sources will improve toward full sufficiency within the next 3-5 years. In summary: Summer 2014: Hire RA. RA will evaluate syllabi and meet with instructors to assess current state of teaching about finding, evaluating, and using sources for multiple types of writing in Horticultural Science. Fall 2014: RA will summarize findings and report to departmental curriculum committee. Fall 2014: RA will work with Tim Gustafson and Julie Kelly to develop options for an interactive online tool that teaches students about finding, evaluating, and using sources. Fall 2014: Workshop on teaching about identification and use of sources. Fall 2014: RA presents options for online tool to curriculum committee; a decision is made on which option to proceed with. Spring 2014: RA develops tool.

The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing

University of Minnesota 612-626-7639

www.wec.umn.edu

Summer 2015: Tool is piloted in HORT 4096W (online course that focuses on skills related to writing for lay audiences). Summer 2015 and beyond: Regular WEC-sponsored evaluation of student writing samples will help determine if the introduction of the tool has had an impact on student writing. We will also continue to improve the HORT 4096W course by making the course A/F only, implementing changes suggested by WEC staff, and rotating the instruction of this course to other faculty in order to get new ideas about how to better teach the course. Earlier in this document, we expressed concern that multiple faculty teaching a single WI course could be problematic. We do not think this course is as much of a concern because the course is a capstone, and the non-WI version has traditionally involved several faculty each year. Nevertheless, we will continue to review the course just like other WI courses. Finally, we will implement the WI course review process described in Section 4 above. Section #6: PROCESS USED TO CREATE THIS WRITING PLAN: How, and to what degree, were stakeholders in this unit (faculty members, instructors, affiliates, teaching assistants, undergraduates, others) engaged in providing, revising, and approving the content of this Writing Plan? The initial draft for this version of the writing plan was developed by a small committee of faculty interested in this topic, each of whom had served as WEC Liaisons. The draft was based on discussions at a spring 2013 faculty meeting attended by WEC staff and results from the student writing sample rating. Minor changes in the writing abilities were made based on conversations with WEC staff during 2012; these changes were meant to more clearly explain the abilities to students, faculty, and raters of student writing. A draft of the plan was distributed to faculty and then discussed at a faculty meeting in September 2013. A final plan was produced based on faculty input and submitted for an electronic vote by the faculty (approved unanimously on October 14, 2013). The document was revised again in December 2013 based on Writing Board input. Section #7: Briefly, please describe the ways that the ideas contained in this Undergraduate Writing Plan address the University's Student Learning Outcomes (http://www.slo.umn).

Our plan addresses the following Student Learning Outcomes:

Can locate and critically evaluate information. Our emphasis on locating and utilizing good sources will allow students be become better evaluators of information. Can communicate effectively. Students will be able to better communicate about horticulture when they are using high quality sources for their writing. Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning. Life-long learning requires the ability to identify and utilize new information.

5. WEC Writing Plan Requests Unit Name:

$23,631.94

Semester 1: Summer 2014 Semester 2: Fall 2014 Semester 3: Spring 2015Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost

Semester 1 Total: $7,394.34 Semester 2 Total: $8,118.80 Semester 3 Total: $8,118.80

Rationale for costs and their schedule of distribution

Semester 1: Spring 2014 Semester 2: Fall 2014 Semester 3:Service Qty Service Qty Service Qty

Workshop 1 Workshop 1

Total Financial Request:

$8,118.80 $8,118.80

Description and rationale for services

Financial Requests (requests cannot include faculty salary support) drop-down choices will appear when cell next to "semester"is selected

Service Requests drop-down choices will appear when a cell in the "service" column is selected

We would like workshops on two topics: teaching students how to identify appropriate sources and developing and using grading rubrics.

the GA will survey current courses about how use of sources is currenlty taught, (and in which courses) and then use that information to develop resources

for faculty and students on this important topic. This will also lead to discussions about how we can better teach this important skill throughout our

curriculum.

50% Graduate Assistant $7,394.34 25% Graduate Assistant 25% Graduate Assistant

Semester 4: Semester 5: Semester 6:Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost

Semester 4 Total: $0.00 Semester 5 Total: $0.00 Semester 6 Total: $0.00

Semester 4: Semester 5: Semester 6:Service Qty Service Qty Service Qty

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Campus Writing Board

January 15, 2014

To: Eric Watkins, Horticultural Science

From: Robert McMaster, Office of Undergraduate Education

Subject: Decision regarding WEC funding proposal

The Department of Horticultural Science recently requested the following funding to support its

Writing Enriched Curriculum:

Summer 2014 50% Graduate Assistant $ 7,394.34

Fall 2014 25% Graduate Assistant $ 8,118.80

Spring 2015 25% Graduate Assistant $ 8,118.80

TOTAL REQUEST $ 23,631.94

All items above have been approved by the Office of Undergraduate Education, for a total of

$23,631.94. Please provide Pat Ferrian (ferri004@umn.edu) with your department’s EFS

information so the funds may be transferred.

CC: Suzanne Bardouche, Will Durfee, Pat Ferrian, Pamela Flash, Molly Bendzick, Jules

Thompson, Tim Gustafson