Prepared by Dr. Christopher Minnix, Director of Freshman Composition and Cynthia Mwenja, Graduate Research Assistant to the Director of Freshman Composition

2012 saw the retirement of Dr. Peggy Jolly and the transition of the position of Director of Freshman Composition to Dr. Christopher Minnix. During the 2012-2013 Academic Year, Dr. Minnix

conducted a thorough overview of the previous assessment data available and analyzed the assessment methods and developed a plan to expand the Freshman Composition Program’s Assessment. Assessment in previous years has focused on the analysis of one sample of student writing from English 102, which has served as an exit assessment for students taking the Freshman English sequence. Comparisons were drawn on a year-to-year basis rather than on a pre and post course model. Perceiving the need for a more extensive Program Assessment, Dr. Minnix developed an assessment plan that moves in three stages: (1) Years 1-2: Data Gathering for Full Programmatic Assessment of Freshman Writing Program, (2) Years 2-3: Assessment of Curricular Enhancements and Support Mechanisms, (3) Years 3-4: Cross-Curricular Writing Assessment Partnerships. The information reported in this WEAVE report is culled from the ongoing efforts towards the full programmatic assessment in stage 1 and is outlined in the table below. In addition to these efforts, Dr. Minnix collaborated with English Faculty to conduct the direct assessment of writing developed by Dr. David Corliss and Dr. Peggy Jolly. However, in consultation with Dr. Greg Janowski, the rubric and numeric scale were revised to simplify rating. At the end of this assessment, the Director of Freshman Composition analyzed the assessment methods and has redesigned the Spring 2013 direct assessment of student writing so that it meets the basic guidelines and suggestions of the National Council of Teachers of English by assessing multiple samples of student writing and charting growth of student writing through portfolio assessment.

The Director of Freshman Composition initiated a full Freshman Composition Program Assessment in

collaboration with the Writing Program graduate research assistant. This assessment includes a Direct Assessment of Student Writing, as in previous years, but supplements this measure with multiple indirect measures. These measures are outlined below. All indirect measures followed the best practices of informed consent. All subjects were kept anonymous on documents, and all data is securely stored and stripped of all identifiers. Assessment Activity Current Status Anticipated Completion Multi-Factor Data Request for 6 Year Period

Data Received and Being Analyzed

Fall 2013

Survey of Faculty Teaching Freshman Composition (Anonymous)

Survey Completed: 40 respondents.

Completed

Freshman Composition Assessment Data for WEAVE Report: 2012-13

Overview of Program Assessment

Program Assessment Phase 1

    Student Exit Survey for EH 102 Students

Survey Completed: 271 respondents.

Completed

Faculty Interviews

Representative Sample of Adjunct Faculty Interviewed; Some Full Time (TT and NTE) Interviewed

Remaining Interviews To Be Completed Fall 2013.

Direct Assessment of Student Writing

Assessment Conducted on 5/14

Completed. Scores Tabulated and Analyzed

Analysis of Syllabi and Curricular Materials

Analysis Complete

Completed

Data Request: The Director of Freshman Composition met with Lee Smith and his team to design a data request on Continuation/Retention and other important student data for all students who took EH 091/101/102 over the past seven years. This data set indicates not only individual student retention and continuation, but also indicates whether or not the student has received credit through transfer, CLEP, their time to graduation (if applicable), current standing, demographic information, and high school. Because this data set is extensive—over one thousand Excel Pages—analysis will be completed in Fall 2013.

*Please note that the discussion below is based on the curriculum of previous years. This curriculum has been revised for AY 2013-2014.

This survey was conducted anonymously utilizing Survey Monkey. The Freshman Composition Committee analyzed and revised the initial survey and then served as the test group for the

survey, taking the survey and providing revisions to particular questions. The attached document lists all survey questions and provides tables for al quantitative rating questions. Written response questions are currently being coded and analyzed for patterns of response. This analysis will be completed in the Fall 2013 semester. The table below indicates faculty answers to questions specific to both the curriculum and workload. *Please Note that Full Survey Contained 20 Questions, with 14 of those questions being written response. A full copy of the survey is available on request.

Assessment Measures for Freshman Composition Program Assessment

Survey of Composition Faculty

SUMMARY OF NUMERICAL QUESTIONS FOR FACULTY SURVEY. Survey Question # Answ. Question Ratings Summary Conclusions Q 3 Please rate how prepared you feel students are for writing in 100 level composition courses, such as EH 101.

35 57.1% Rated Students as Somewhat Prepared; 25.7% Unprepared; 14.3% Prepared; 2.9% Very Prepared.

Only 17.2% of Respondents Rated Students at Prepared or Higher

Q 9 Please rate the effectiveness of the EH 101 curriculum in helping students achieve the following course outcomes (by the end of the course): (1) Rhetorical Knowledge; (2) Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing; (3) Writing Processes; (4) Knowledge of Conventions

31 (1) Rhetorical Knowledge: 38.7% Somewhat Effective; 29% Effective; 22.6% Very Effective; 9.7% Not Effective; 0% Exceptionally Effective.

(1) Rhetorical Knowledge: 51.6% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective Or Higher.

(2) Critical Thinking, Reading, & Writing: 53.3% Somewhat Effective; 20% Very Effective; 16.7% Effective; 6.7% Not Effective; 3.3% Exceptionally Effective

(2) Critical Thinking. . : 40% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher.

(3) Writing Processes: 32.3% Somewhat Effective; 25.8% Very Effective; 25.8% Effective; 9.7% Not Effective; 6.5% Exceptionally Effective.

(3) Writing Processes: 58.2% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(4) Knowledge of Conventions: 38.7% Somewhat Effective; 22.6% Very Effective; 19.4% Effective; 16.1% Not Effective; 3.2% Exceptionally Effective

(4) Knowledge of Conventions: 45.2% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

Q 10 Please rate the effectiveness of the EH 102 curriculum in helping students achieve the following course outcomes (by the end of the course): (1) Rhetorical Knowledge; (2) Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing; (3) Writing Processes; (4) Knowledge of Conventions

29 (1) Rhetorical Knowledge: 41.4% Somewhat Effective; 31% Effective; 20.7% Very Effective; 6.9% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective.

(1) Rhetorical Knowledge: 58.6% of Respondents Rate Curriculum Effective or Higher

(2) Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing: 44.8% Somewhat Effective; 34.5% Effective; 13.8% Very Effective; 6.9% Exceptionally Effective; 3.4% Not Effective.

(2) Critical Thinking . . . : 55.2% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(3) Writing Processes: 44.8% Somewhat Effective; 31% Very Effective; 13.8% Effective; 6.9% Exceptionally Effective; 3.4% Note Effective.

(3) Writing Processes: 51.7% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(4) Knowledge of Conventions: 34.5% Somewhat Effective; 31.0% Effective; 24.1% Very Effective; 6.9% Exceptionally Effective; 3.4% Not Effective.

(4) Knowledge of Conventions: 62% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

Q 11 Please rate the effectiveness of the EH 091 curriculum in preparing developmental writers to achieve the following outcomes or goals.

16 (1) Respond to Assigned Topic: 50 % Effective; 33.3% Very Effective; 12.5% Somewhat Effective; 6.3% Exceptionally

(1) Respond to Assigned Topic: 83.3% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(1) The student can respond to an assigned topic. (2) The student can write a complete essay that contains a central idea that focuses on a clear purpose. (3) The student can develop the central idea of the essay using specific examples, facts, or details. (4) The student presents information in a coherent, cohesive manner. (5) The student writes clear, complete sentences using subordination and coordination appropriately. (6) The student can read critically and integrate information from external readings into an essay (7) The student exhibits competence in control of grammar, usage, and mechanics.

Effective; 0% Not Effective

(2) Complete Essay With Central Idea and Purpose 25% Effective; 37.5% Very Effective; 31.3% Somewhat Effective; 6.3% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective

(2) Complete Essay With Central Idea and Purpose: 62.5% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(3) Develop Central Idea 56.3% Effective; 18.8% Very Effective; 18.8% Somewhat Effective; 6.3% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective

(3) Develop Central Idea: 75.1% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(4) Presents Information in Coherent Manner 37.5% Effective; 18.8% Very Effective; 37.5% Somewhat Effective; 6.3% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective

(4) Presents Information in Coherent Manner: 56.3% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(5) Clear, Complete Sentences 25% Effective; 31.3% Very Effective; 43.8% Somewhat Effective; 0% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective

(5) Clear, Complete Sentences: 56.3% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(6) Read Critically and Integrate Information 31.3% Effective; 12.5% Very Effective; 50% Somewhat Effective; 0% Exceptionally Effective; 6.3% Not Effective

(6) Read Critically and Integrate Information: 53.8% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

(7) Competence in Grammar, Usage, Mechanics 37.5% Effective; 18.8% Very Effective; 43.8% Somewhat Effective; 0% Exceptionally Effective; 0% Not Effective

(7) Competence in Grammar, Usage, Mechanics: 56.3% of Respondents Rated Curriculum Effective or Higher

Q 19 Please help us get a sense of the workload for our Composition Courses. Please indicate hours per week or activity below for one section of EH 091/101/102. Note that both Grading and Conferencing are not marked "per week," and require you to indicate total time spent on one section of papers or one set of student conferences. Currently I spend the following amount of time per section:

25 (1) Preparing Class 4% 30 min.-1hr; 32% 1-2hrs; 36% 3-4 hrs; 24% 5-6hrs; 4% 7hrs or more.

(1) Preparing Class: majority of respondents spend between 1 and 4 hrs. per week preparing class

(2) Grading One Section of Formal Papers (17-25) 0% 30 min.-1hr; 0% 1-2hrs; 12% 3-4 hrs; 28% 5-6hrs; 60% 7hrs or more.

(2) Grading One Section of Formal Papers (17-25): majority of respondents spend more than 7 hours grading one section of 17-25 essays.

(3) Holding Formal Conferences With Students 36% 30 min.-1hr; 44% 1-2hrs; 12% 3-4 hrs; 4% 5-6hrs; 4% 7hrs or more.

(3) Holding Formal Conferences With Students: majority of respondents spend 30 min to 2 hours per week conferencing.

(4) Meeting With Students During Office Hours 60% 30 min.-1hr; 20% 1-2 hrs; 20% 3-4 hrs; 0% 5-6hrs; 0% 7hrs or more.

(4) Meeting With Students During Office Hours: majority of respondents spend 30 minutes to 2 hours per week meeting with students.

(5) Answering Student Emails 16% 30 min.-1hr; 60% 1-2hrs; 16% 3-4 hrs; 4% 5-6hrs; 4% 7hrs or more.

(5) Answering Student Emails: majority of respondents spend 1-2 hours per week responding to student emails.

Discussion: the survey indicates several important points. First, an overwhelming majority of faculty respondents note that students are often unprepared for college writing when they enter UAB. Only 17% of faculty noted that students are prepared or very prepared, while 57% indicated that they are “somewhat prepared.” This number underscores the importance of Freshman Writing in helping students succeed at the UAB. Second, while faculty expressed confidence in our previous curriculum, faculty expressed most confidence in the effectiveness of our developmental writing course, EH 091, which needs continued support. Faculty responses to the questions concerning the effectiveness of EH 101 and EH 102 illustrated confidence, but also indicated curricular outcomes such as Rhetorical Knowledge and Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing that can be improved upon. The new curriculum listed below took the answers to these questions into account and addresses these issues directly. Finally, our workload question, Q19, indicates the heavy faculty workload for Freshman Composition courses, as well as the dedication of faculty who work to give substantive feedback to student writing, encourage revision, and give students individual instruction during conferences and office hours.

The Director of Freshman Composition and his

graduate research assistant developed the paper-based Student Survey. The survey was prefaced by a Disclosure Form that explained why the survey was being conducted and that it had no bearing on the student’s performance in the course. Instructions for faculty included with the survey required faculty to leave the classroom at the time the survey was being distributed and taken so that the results were not coerced. SUMMARY TABLE: NUMERIC RESPONSES TO 2012-13 STUDENT SURVEY (278 RETURNED SURVEYS MINUS 7 INCOMPLETE = 271 TOTAL RESPONDENTS. SPRING 2013 EH 102)

Question Responses By Ranking Summary Conclusions Q 1: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective,” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you develop college level writing skills.

10: 45 (17%) 5: 12 (4%) 85% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated at 7 or Higher, and 68% at 8 or Higher.

9: 56 (21%) 4: 1 (0.4%) 8: 82 (30%) 3: 3 (1%) 7: 48 (18%) 2: 0 (0%) 6: 22 (8%) 1: 2 (1%)

Q 3: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective,” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you develop skills of analyzing texts.

10: 45 (17%) 5: 31 (11%) 71% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated at 7 or Higher, and 49% at 8 or Higher.

9: 38 (14%) 4: 10 (4%) 8: 50 (19%) 3: 5 (2%) 7: 58 (21%) 2: 0 (0%) 6: 32 (12%) 1: 2 (1%)

Q 4: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective,” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you learn how

10: 77 (28%) 5: 15 (6%) 88% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated Course at 7 or Higher, and 71% at 8 or Higher.

9: 63 (23%) 4: 0 (0%) 8: 52 (19%) 3: 1 (0.4%)

Survey of EH 102 Students: Exit Survey on Composition Courses

to develop and support an argument or thesis.

7: 45 (17%) 2: 0 (0%) 6: 17 (6%) 1: 1 (0.4%)

Q 6: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective,” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you learn how to conduct research on a topic and find sources to support your main ideas or arguments.

10: 65 (30%) 5: 20 (7%) 83% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated Course at 7 or Higher, and 64% at 8 or Higher.

9: 48 (18%) 4: 1 (0.4%) 8: 61 (23%) 3: 2 (1%) 7: 51 (19%) 2: 0 (0%) 6: 20 (7%) 1: 3 (1%)

Q 7: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective,” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you learn how to integrate sources and ideas from others into your own writing.

10: 58 (21%) 5: 14 (5%) 85% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated Course at 7 or Higher, and 64% at 8 or Higher.

9: 48 (18%) 4: 5 (2%) 8: 68 (25%) 3: 3 (1%) 7: 55 (20%) 2: 0 (0%) 6: 19 (7%) 1: 1 (0.4%)

Q 8: On a scale of one to ten, with 10 being “most effective” rate the effectiveness of your UAB Freshman English courses in helping you respond effectively to writing assignments by writing multiple drafts and revising.

10: 44 (16%) 5: 15 (6%) 76% of EH 102 Students Surveyed Rated Course at 7 or Higher, and 60% at 8 or Higher.

9: 59 (22%) 4: 7 (3%) 8: 60 (22%) 3: 6 (2%) 7: 42 (15%) 2: 3 (1%) 6: 33 (12%) 1: 2 (1%)

Discussion: Responses indicate a strong degree of student confidence in our Freshman Composition Courses and are quite strong for a required course. Based upon this data, we see that the curricular revisions to EH 101—building an assignment sequence that builds and extends students analytical skills—responds directly to the lowest ranked question Q 3. The second lowest ranked question, Q 8, is being addressed by a mandatory portfolio assignment that builds multiple drafts and revision into the core of the curriculum. Our revised curriculum will allow our program to build upon the strengths of each outcome mentioned in this survey, and includes enhancements to foster student research, argumentation, and adaptive writing processes.

Faculty interviews began being conducted in the Spring 2013 semester and continue to be conducted through the Fall semester 2013. All

interview participants are asked to read, review, and sign an Informed Consent form that authorizes the interviewer to conduct the interview and use the responses as part of program review. In order to maintain fairness and objectivity, the graduate research assistant interviewed a representative sample of adjunct faculty and stripped her interview notes of all identifying information and separated them from the Informed Consent forms before returning them to the Director of Freshman Composition. The Director of Freshman Composition conducted and am continuing to conduct interviews with a representative sample tenure-track and non-tenure earning faculty. These interviews will be analyzed and coded to reveal overlapping categories of curricular practices and concerns. Discussion: at this stage in the interviewing process, faculty from all levels have expressed a strong commitment to the teaching of writing and enthusiasm for continued faculty support and pedagogy workshops. Our faculty come from a variety of programs and bring a variety of perspectives to the teaching of writing. Faculty express a desire for professional development and support curricular revision. In particular, faculty have expressed great interest in resources on responding to student writing, new writing pedagogies, and assessing student writing.

Faculty Interviews

Interviews have also revealed a commitment to student revision and drafting and a commitment to teaching issues of style and grammar within the context of students’ own writing. While interviews are still ongoing, these commitments are very encouraging and reflect the best practices of writing pedagogy outlined by the National Council of Teachers of English and the Council of Writing Program Administrators. In addition, these commitments reflect pedagogical practices documented and supported by research in Rhetoric and Composition Studies.

After two meetings with Dr. Greg Janowski, the Director of Freshman Composition developed a new

departmental rubric for our Outcomes Based Assessment of Student Writing. The Director presented a new set of step-by-step instructions for collecting samples of student writing. Three random samples of the Final Assignment of EH 102 per course were collected. For this final assignment, the following, mandatory guidelines were listed. Each assignment had to meet the following minimal guidelines.

The Direct Assessment of Student Writing took place on May 14th 2013. 10 readers met from 9-3 in order to read a sample of roughly 10% of student writing from EH 102. This year’s sample was smaller than the previous years’

samples because eight sections of EH 102 were exempted from the assessment because they were piloting the new EH 102 curriculum. This session was preceded by a one hour training session that explained the rubric and normed scores to the rubric by scoring a student essay. The attached rubric lists course outcomes and score ranges. The summary table below lists student scores by rubric category. DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF WRITING: SCORES BY RUBRIC CATEGORY

Sample Size: 79 Randomly Selected Student Essays (Read Twice by 10 Readers) *This sample size is smaller than the previous year’s assessment because 8 sections were exempted because they were piloting a new EH 102 curriculum. Score Range: 4 “Outstanding”; 3 “Above Average”; 2 “Competent”; 1 “Insufficient”

Rubric Outcomes Category Ranking of Category (9 Highest-1 Lowest)

Average Score for Rubric Outcomes Category

Score Variation Among Readers

RK (Rhetorical Knowledge) RK 1: Responds Appropriately to the Audience, Purpose, and Context of the Assignment

7 2.4 .4

RK 2: Focuses on a Purpose

6 2.4 .5

RK 3: Organizes Argument Clearly and Appropriately According to Genre/Assignment

5 2.3 .6

Direct Assessment of Student Writing

Type of Assignment: Argument Development: Out of Class Length: Minimum 1000 Words Sources: Minimum of 3 Rough Drafts: Minimum of 1 MLA Format: In-Text Citations and Works Cited Page Due Date: April 30th (T/R Classes); May 1 (MWF Class)

CTRW (Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing) CTRW 1: Develops a Clear Argumentative Thesis

4 2.3 .9

CTRW 2: Supports and Develops Thesis with Reasons and Evidence

1 2.2 .8

CTRW 3: Integrates Student’s Ideas with Ideas from Sources

3 2.3 .7

KC (Knowledge of Conventions) KC 1: Cites All Outside Sources Appropriately

2 2.3 1.3

KC 2: Controls Surface features of Punctuation and Grammar Effectively

9 2.5 1.6

KC 3: Develops Complex Sentence Structures

8 2.4 1.1

Discussion: As mentioned in the note above, this year’s sample size was smaller due to a EH 102 Pilot Curriculum of 8 Sections. Of 10 Readers, the scores of two of the readers were consistently significantly higher than the mean, so they were ruled out of the final scoring. The Director of Composition reviewed and scored the essays scored by these readers in order to ensure the scores of their other reader were fair. In addition, some samples had to be ruled out of the direct assessment because they did not accurately fit the parameters of the final assignment. Averaged scores for each of the categories of the rubric listed above are in the “Competent” range. Scores in the rubric categories of KC 1, KC2, and KC3 showed the most significant variance among individual readers. Scores for issues of grammar and punctuation also showed the highest range of variance in the previous year’s assessment. Such variance could point to the need for a greater differentiation between issues of style and grammar or correctness, and has led the Director of Composition to develop both workshops and materials for addressing grammatical concerns in student writing.

The Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress, now known as ETS’s Proficiency Profile, has been utilized in previous years and administrated

to a sample of freshmen and seniors. No data from this test was reported to the Director of Freshman Composition for the academic year 2012-2013. However, the Director of Freshman Composition did analyze this test and the information available online about the test from ETS and noted one disturbing aspect of the test. The test purports to measure skill in writing, but derives its validity from answers to multiple-choice questions rather than from actual student writing. Students never write a single sentence or paragraph for the test, which indicates that performance in writing is measured by grammatical knowledge not by student writing. The ability to advance and support an argument, to structure ideas, to respond critically to multiple perspectives and texts for specific audiences, and many other central writing outcomes are not addressed by this test. The Director of Freshman Composition strongly discourages the writing component of this test being utilized for assessment data, as it is simply not a writing test or a measure of student writing ability.

In order to ensure that all Composition faculty receive necessary support in

Reviewing MAPP

Faculty Participation in Composition Workshops

Composition teaching, the Director of Freshman Composition has required that all Composition faculty attend two pedagogy workshops—one at the beginning of the Fall Semester and one at the beginning of the Spring Semester. These workshops have been entitled “The Composition Big Think,” and provide professional instruction in Composition pedagogy. At the beginning of the Spring Semester in January 2013, the Director of Freshman Composition and two full-time faculty members, Dr. Bruce McComiskey and Dr. Margaret Jessee presented materials on assessing and responding to student writing, teaching rhetoric, and teaching argumentation over the course of two hours. In addition, faculty took part in a workshop during this time on responding effectively to student writing. This event was followed at the beginning of the Fall semester 2013 with a workshop introducing the new EH 101 and EH 102 curriculum. Anyone who was unable to attend these workshops was asked to schedule a special meeting with the Director of Freshman Composition in order to discuss the information that they missed. In addition to these workshops, the Director of Freshman Composition developed a regular workshop series on the teaching of Freshman Composition, entitled Writing Pedagogy Workshops. In its current state, this workshop series provides workshops covering each unit and assignment in the EH 101 and EH 102 curriculum throughout both the Fall and the Spring semesters. In addition to these workshops, special topics workshops are also held. EH 091 is being supported by a Teacher Collaborative, which meets monthly to discuss the course and curricular revision. From Fall 2012 through Fall 2013, the following eight workshops have been held. An additional eight workshops are planned for the remainder of the academic year 2013. Please note that, in contrast to previous years, the direct assessment of writing scoring session is excluded from this list, as it does not fit the definition of a pedagogical workshop. In addition, training workshops given by Instructional Technology personnel on Blackboard have been excluded.

1. Visual Analysis Brownbag—Presentations by Dr. Cynthia Ryan, Dr. Jaclyn Wells, and Dr. Christopher Minnix

2. The Composition Big Think—Presentations by Dr. Bruce McComiskey, Dr. Margaret

Jessee, and Dr. Christopher Minnix

3. “The Grammar Problem: Popular Myths, Writing Research, and Pedagogical Strategies”—Presentation by Dr. Christopher Minnix

4. Workshop with Nancy Sommers of Harvard University: “The Pleasures of Teaching

Composition”

5. The John J. Haggerty Articulation Conference—Presentation by Dr. Bruce McComiskey and Keynote by Dr. Michelle Sidler of Auburn University.

6. The Composition Big Think 2: Teaching the Revised EH 101 and EH 102

Curriculum—Presentation by Dr. Christopher Minnix

7. EH 101 Workshop: Teaching Visual Analysis and Assessing the Rhetorical Analysis Assignment—Presentation by Dr. Jeffrey Bacha and Dr. Christopher Minnix

8. EH 102 Workshop: From the Change Project Assignment to Academic Research—

Presentation by Eugene Cuevas and Dr. Christopher Minnix

Faculty participation varied at all of the voluntary workshops, but the required Composition Big Think workshops have been required. While one or two composition faculty have been unable to attend, they have been required to meet with the Director of Freshman Composition in order to receive the information. The Director of Freshman Composition is currently creating screencasts and beginning to video workshops for those who cannot attend voluntary workshops and placing these videos on the Freshman Composition Online Resource (FYCres) discussed below. Composition faculty from all ranks are asked to contribute in order to provide a broad range of perspectives, but with the ultimate goal of cultivating a culture of teaching and collaboration.

In order to provide faculty with pedagogical resources, the Director of Freshman Composition built and populated a

password protected website entitled FYCres (Freshman Composition Online Resource) that provides the following for Instructors:

• Links to Course Guidelines and Composition Committee Approved Course Policies. • Links to Departmental Syllabi for each course, Sample Assignment Sheets for each

course, sample short writing assignments and classroom activities for each course, and sample assessment materials.

• In partnership with Sterne Library, a password protected EReader of a couple hundred readings available through the Library Databases or Course Reserves that instructors can link to their Blackboard sites for students to analyze. *Note: this site and readings are not available to students. Instructors have to link readings through the library and students have to enter their Blazernet ID and Password to access them.

• Links to Writing Program Pedagogy Workshop Materials: Including screencasts and videos of workshops, copies of handouts, and PowerPoint presentations for those who could not attend the voluntary workshops.

• Links to Professional Readings in Composition Pedagogy available through Sterne Library.

• Online collections of faculty approaches to the assignments that encourage pedagogical innovation.

While the Director of Freshman Composition continues to review all Freshman Composition

syllabi to assure consistency and adherence to course objectives, he has developed additional measures to ensure consistency. Beginning in Fall 2013 semester, all Composition faculty are issued a written list of Composition Course Requirements, which designate “Requirements for Written Work,” as well as “Requirements for Assigning and Responding to Student Writing.” Please see the Appendix to this document for a copy of these requirements. In conjunction with the departmental Freshman English Committee, the Director of Freshman Composition has also developed a required set of course policies that must be present on every Composition syllabus, entitled “Required Composition Course Policies: Approved by the Freshman Composition Committee 4/17/13.” These policies standardize attendance, plagiarism, and other vital policies, while also indicated resources for students, such as information about the University Writing Center. These policies are attached in the Appendix also.

Consistency in Composition Curriculum

First Year Composition Online Instructor’s Resource--FYCres

After review and assessment of the previous curricular, the Director of Composition worked with the Composition Committee to develop a curriculum for EH 101 and EH 102 that provides a sequence of

assignments for both courses that sequentially builds on students’ analytical, critical thinking, and argumentative skills and that promotes adaptive writing processes. Using outcomes statements such as The Council of Writing Program Administrator’s Outcomes Statement and The Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing, the Director of Composition developed new assignment sequences for EH 101 and EH 102, and a pilot curriculum for EH 091. These sequences, as well as brief rationale for them are outlined below. Please note that each curriculum—EH 091/101/102—now contains a semester portfolio project that includes copies of all student work, one or more heavily revised papers, and a rigorous semester reflection that asks students to analyze their progress in the areas defined by the course outcomes. Curricular Revisions for EH 101/102 EH 101 Curriculum Revision The following course proposal is designed to provide more continuity between assignments in EH 101, as well as align EH 101 with the portfolio model suggested for each of our courses. Assignment Sequence: the following sequence of assignments enables students to build on their analytical skills while also allowing our faculty options for adapting the assignments to their interests and strengths. This barebones or general outline can be adopted to a variety of course themes, while also creating continuity in terms of outcomes. For each of the assignments below, faculty are encouraged to develop one or two options that we might place on the Freshman Composition Online Resource (FYCres). Sample assignments are available on FYCres. Project 1 Rhetorical/Textual Analysis: this initial assignment asks students to produce an analysis of one text that analyzes how it constructs its meaning and seeks to respond to its rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, and context). Students are introduced to the basic rhetorical and narrative strategies of textual analysis and use these strategies in order to generate their own interpretations. This basic assignment provides students with the vocabulary and methods that will be utilized throughout the course. Faculty are encouraged to utilize multiple genres of texts for this project and are free to pursue a particular theme for their unit, if they like. Project 2 Visual/Multi-Modal Analysis: this assignment draws on some of the terms of analysis from the first unit, but includes methods of visual analysis and multi-modal analysis that engage students in thinking through the visual strategies utilized to respond to a rhetorical situation. Project 3 Comparative Analysis: The comparative analysis assignment will ask students to read two texts critically and compare both the logical appeals of their arguments but also how they utilize other rhetorical and narrative strategies in order move and persuade their audience. For the conceptual analysis, students will be asked to conduct brief research on the concept they are dealing with and then develop an analysis of a text that examines how the text challenges, confirms, or speaks to our understanding of the concept. Either choice provides students with the tools that they need to read texts in comparison to other ideas and texts.

Curriculum Revision

Project 4: Contextual Analysis: perhaps the most challenging of the assignments, this assignment asks faculty to provide a cultural or intellectual context for the issues students will be writing about. Students are asked to analyze a text through the perspective, lens, or context provided by another text. This assignment is designed to create a strong analogy to the types of writing that we do across the humanities, writing that requires analyze one text through the perspective or ideas of another. However, this does not mean that students need to read cultural theory or any other type of theory for the unit. Instead, faculty are encouraged to provide students with options for secondary texts that provide key ideas or perspectives that students can place in dialogue with a primary text that they are analyzing. Projects 5 and 6: Final Portfolio Project: students are asked to choose one or two essays from their first three essays and provide an substantial revision that develops their arguments further, strengthens their structure, and focuses on other global issues of revision. In addition, students are asked to produce a Semester Reflection that responds to the outcomes of the course and provides an argument about how their writing has improved in ways that speak to these outcomes. Students must develop a thesis about their gains, body paragraphs that address the course outcomes, and evidence from their projects and revisions that they have made these gains. This project is not an opportunity to compliment the teacher and thank them; it is an argument that requires students to not simply reflect but substantiate their reflective claims. Omitted Assignments: The timed summary has its place, but falls outside of the outcomes of the course and takes time away from students learning to write more extended compositions, so it has been omitted. Research Requirements for EH 101: the Alabama Articulation and General Studies Committee does not require academic research be conducted in EH 101. What is required, according to the guidelines is that students “develop basic reference and documentation skills with emphasis on quotes and paraphrases.” Students fulfill this requirement through extensive use of the readings from the class as sources throughout each of their projects. EH 102 Curriculum Revision Brief Rationale: The outline and assignment sequence of a suggested EH 102 Curriculum is below. This course fosters the development of students’ rhetorical knowledge, critical thinking, flexible writing processes, and metacognition. Current research in Writing Assessment, Genre Theory, and Composition Studies illustrates that students gain extensive rhetorical knowledge when they write for a variety of audiences, purposes, and contexts and within a variety of genres. This curriculum challenges students to write for a variety of academic and public audiences and cultivates students’ critical awareness of genre and adaptive writing processes. Hopefully, the course will also help students understand how academic research and thought plays a role in public life. Assignment Sequence: Students will move through the following sequence. Students work with the same topic or question throughout the course, but take different intellectual approaches to this topic and narrow and redefine this topic throughout the course. Unit One: Introduction to Rhetorical Arguments

Project 1: The Inquiry or Change Project: students begin by developing an introductory argument designed for an audience of their classmates. This assignment asks students to introduce an intellectual, social, or cultural issue they feel is important for their generation (these can be defined in various ways) to their classmates and develop an argument for addressing this issue. Students make and support a claim that argues why and how this issue should be addressed. Students will spend time rhetorically analyzing arguments during this unit in order to think through possible strategies for their own arguments. The project could take the form of a polemic, a visual presentation (page requirement will be adaptable), a letter directed to the class, or a short essay. Unit Two: Analyzing and Entering Academic Conversations Project 2: Synthesis Essay: this short synthesis project asks students to refine and develop the topic from their first essay and moves students into the first research stage of the course. Students engage in library and database research in order to find accessible scholarly sources. Students are required to develop a narrow research question or point of focus and locate four academic sources that provide them with a clear overview of the major stances or positions on the issue. Students write an a short synthesis essay that asks them to synthesize the information from their research and to develop a clear overview of the major points of agreement, disagreement, or common ground on the issue. Faculty members are encouraged to model these issues early in the unit by utilizing readings, documentary films, and other media that capture the plurality of perspectives in a particular debate. Project 3: Academic Argument: after developing their inquiry analysis projects, students write a documented argument that advances and supports a claim designed to persuade an academic audience. Students are asked to find additional sources and draw upon their sources to develop a causal, proposal, rebuttal, ethical or evaluative, or definition argument. The issue, purpose, and context determine the type of argumentation utilized. Faculty members are encouraged to challenge students to analyze specific academic audiences and genres for this project. Unit Three: Entering Public Debates: Project 4: The Public Argument or Multi-Modal Public Argument (25%): students then move from their analysis to the development of a public argument. Faculty can pursue a range of genres with students, but are encouraged to help students think critically about the genres that will be most effective for particular audiences. Faculty can assign traditional print genres, such as Opinion Editorials, or pursue New Media or Multi-Modal projects with students. In addition, faculty are also free to develop a project that utilizes multiple genres and mediums to persuade a public audience. Students are challenged to think about the circulation of their texts, and the response of public audiences to their work. Unit Four: Reflecting on Rhetorical Knowledge: (Weeks 14-15) Projects 5 and 6: Portfolio Project (10%): The final project asks students to develop a specific, supported reflection that articulates the rhetorical knowledge that students have gained and provides proof from their writing to support this knowledge. The reflection asks students not to compliment the teacher and course, but to develop a specific thesis about the development of their writing and support this thesis with evidence from their projects. Since students have

transformed their work throughout the course, this reflection asks them to examine how they have adapted their work and the rhetorical knowledge that they have gained in the process. ** Note: The Portfolio is broken into one or two substantial revisions and a substantive semester reflection, for a total of two projects, which enables this sequence to meet the Alabama Articulation Guidelines. My Comp Lab: After reviewing the use of Pearson’s My Comp Lab, surveying faculty on its actual use, and discussing the product with Pearson’s textbook representatives, the Director of Freshman Composition disbanded the use of the grammar exercises in Pearson My Comp Lab beginning in the Fall 2013 academic year. A preponderance of research in the teaching of writing has shown that such exercises most often pose no direct benefit to students’ writing and can, at worse, take time away from students learning to revise and edit their writing. As noted by the Council of Writing Program Administrators, “studies of writing conclude that there is no evidence that the constant and comprehensive study of traditional grammar rules helps improve student writing. In fact, some studies indicate that a heavy emphasis on mechanics and usage (including marking every error by a teacher) results in a decline in overall quality” (“NMA Campaign Issue: Grammar and Mechanics”). An extensive amount of research in Writing Assessment in Composition Studies has documented that grammatical standards are not declining and error rates have held steady since initial studies conducted in 1917 (Lunsford and Lunsford “Mistakes are a Fact of Life”). From the Lunsford and Lunsford meta-analysis of studies of error, we learn that a 1917 study of student writing found that students make 2.11 errors per 100 words, while students in 2006 make 2.45 (304). It is also important to note that students, on average, are writing much longer essays than in previous years, with the average length of today’s essays in Freshman Composition being 1038 words, and the average length of essays in previous years being significantly lower: 1917 (162 Words); 1930 (231 Words); 1986 (422 Words) (305). One of the most telling comparisons occurs when writing researchers compare the rate or error in student essays with the rate of grammatical or stylistic errors in published essays by professional writers. Gary Sloan reduplicated an earlier study by Connors and Lunsford and validated their finding that students, on average have 9.6 errors per essay, or 2.04 errors per 100 words. Using the same criteria, his readers then scored a sample of professional, published essays and found 8.55 errors per piece, or 1.82 per 100 words (302). These brief references are corroborated by a preponderance of research on the teaching of grammar. The Freshman Composition program is committed to teaching grammar and style and to fostering students’ development of important editing and revision processes. It is highly important, however, to note that the resources that we are developing to support faculty teaching of style and revision are being developed to address issues of style and grammar within students’ own writing, rather than through the use of grammar exercises or drills, which have been documented through Composition research to be ineffective for improving student writing. The best teaching of grammar and usage comes not from drills but from addressing issues of grammar and style within the context of students’ writing, and the Freshman Composition Program is working to provide faculty with resources for addressing issues of grammar and usage in this way. This move also brings UAB’s Freshman Composition program in line with the outcomes and best practices in Composition teaching.

As part of an effort to promote the teaching of writing across campus, the Director of Freshman

Enhancing Writing Across the Curriculum

Composition worked during his first year to begin planning for several strategic partnerships. First, in response to a call by Professor Lila Graves (English) for first year writing courses for English as Second Language students, the Director and Professor Graves held meetings with Dr. Trinh, Director of the English Language Institute and Dr. Susan Spezzini of the Department of Education regarding the development of English courses that will be designed for ESL students and fulfill the requirement for Freshman English. Professor Graves is piloting one section of the first section of this course during the Fall 2013. The Director and Professor Graves are currently working on increasing enrollment for these courses so that this program can be expanded and are seeking support in two ways. First, they are seeking curricular guidance by contacting ESL program directors and well-known authorities on ESL writing for assistance in developing the curriculum and assessment models for the program. Second, they are seeking assistance at UAB with placement so that they courses can reach those students who are in most need of them. In addition to this course, the Director of Freshman Composition has attempted to reach out across campus to various departments and units in order to begin the groundwork for a cross-curricular discussion of writing pedagogy and assessment. He met with Randall Kornegay, Coordinator of Business Writing to discuss ways that English might support writing in Business, and how the introduction of multi-modal or new media projects in EH 102 might support the types of writing students in Business writing courses complete. In addition, the Director of Composition has also met with Dr. Kimberly Cunningham, Director of the Center for Student Success to discuss how Freshman English can support the efforts of the Student Success Center. The Director has also spoken regarding English Placement and Writing course at the meeting of the Committee on Academic Advising. Finally, the Director, along with the Director of the Writing Center, Dr. Jaclyn Wells, has met with the Center for Teaching and Learning to discuss collaboration for future workshops for faculty across the curriculum that will be piloted in AY 2013-14. The University Writing Web: the Director of Freshman Composition reviewed the University Writing Web, and noted that the resource has not attracted the level of inter-departmental participation intended. Though the handbook has changed to A Writer’s Reference and thus would not be tied to this project, the Director believes that such a project can be of immense benefit, but that it needs to be developed from the bottom-up by developing groups of faculty across the curriculum committed to discussing the teaching of writing in and across their disciplines. To develop this type of contact will require resources and opportunities for faculty to participate. The Director of Freshman Composition is currently outlining a plan to promote this type of inter-departmental discussion so that an online resource will have more buy-in and ultimately more utility.

UAB English Basic Guidelines for Composition Courses

The following general guidelines apply for all EH 091, EH 101, and EH 102 courses. Course Policies: All composition syllabi should contain the Composition Committee Approved Course Policies. These policies, which are attached as an addendum, can be simply copied and pasted into your syllabus. In addition, the Departmental Course Description must be included on the syllabus. Requirements for Written Work: Students must complete six writing assignments that are broken down into four major writing assignments plus a final portfolio that contains a reflection and one to two significant revision(s). **Note: This sequence meets the six assignment requirement of the Alabama Articulation and General Studies Committee, as the final portfolio is broken into two projects: (1) revision of two essays and (2) a substantial reflective essay. In addition to these guidelines, the following guidelines need to be met:

o Grades on formal writing assignments should constitute no less than 75% of the student’s course grade. Informal writing, peer review, and other short assignments should account for no more than 25% of the student’s grade. Please discuss requests for individual adaptations of these percentages with the Director of Freshman Composition, Chris Minnix.

o Students must turn in drafts with each writing assignment in order to receive credit.

This policy enables faculty to chart the progress of student writing, while also enabling faculty to more easily monitor cases of suspected plagiarism.

o General instructions for the Portfolio Project will be provided at the beginning of the

term and will need to stay consistent because student portfolios will be utilized as part of our program assessment.

Requirements for Assigning and Responding to Student Writing:

o Written Assignment Sheets are required for each formal writing assignment of the course. Assignment sheets must be distributed to students in class or via Blackboard well before the assignment is due.

o Feedback or comments are required on each formal writing assignment. While methods may vary, from the traditional marginal and end comments to rubrics and even recorded verbal comments, the instructor’s comments or response must be able to be revisited by students as they revise essays for their Portfolio.

o As per the English Department policies, students should receive graded papers back

within two weeks of submitting them. University holidays that fall during the term are not included as part of this two-week period. Individual issues (emergencies, illness, project deadlines, etc.) may, of course, necessitate taking slightly more time, such as an additional class period.

o It is recommended that students receive grades and feedback on two assignments before

the last date to withdraw from the course.

Appendices for Freshman 2012-2013 Freshman Composition Report

Required Composition Course Policies

Approved by Freshman Composition Committee 4/17/2013 Academic Misconduct and Plagiarism: UAB Faculty expects all members of its academic community to function according to the highest ethical and professional standards. Academic dishonesty and misconduct includes, but is not limited to, acts of abetting, cheating, plagiarism, fabrication, and misrepresentation. Candidates are expected to honor the UAB Academic Code of Conduct as detailed in the most current UAB Student Catalog. Please consult this resource for additional information regarding the specific procedures to be undertaken when a student violates the UAB Academic Code of Conduct: https://www.uab.edu/students/academics/honor-code

• ABETTING is helping another student commit an act of academic dishonesty. Allowing someone to copy your quiz answers or use your work as their own are examples of abetting.

• CHEATING is the unauthorized use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information, study aids, the work of others, or computer-related information.

• PLAGIARISM means claiming as your own the ideas, words, data, computer programs, creative compositions, artwork, etc., done by someone else. Examples include improper citation of referenced works, the use of commercially available scholarly papers, failure to cite sourced, or copying another person's ideas.

• FABRICATION means presenting falsified data, citations, or quotations as genuine. • MISREPRESENTATION is falsification, alteration, or the misstatement of the contents of

documents, academic work, or other materials related to academic matters, including work substantially done for one class as work done for another without receiving prior approval from the instructor.

Violations of the UAB Academic Honor Code are punishable by a range of penalties, from receiving a failing grade on an assignment to an F in the course to dismissal. Any course grade of F for academic misconduct supersedes any other grade or notation for that class. Withdrawal from a course while a possible violation of the Academic Honor Code is under review will not preclude the assignment of a course grade that appropriately reflects the student’s performance prior to withdrawal if the violation is substantiated. Assigning Grades Involving Plagiarism: Plagiarism is defined as “using the words or thoughts of another person without proper citation; specifically, it is submitting as one’s own work any portion of a book, magazine, journal, handout, original creation, speech, lecture, oral communication, paper or examination written by someone else.” This policy includes both traditional material and electronically mediated material such as that found on websites. The faculty member is entitled, under the policies of the University, to record an “F” for the course in which the offense has been committed, penalize the grade on an individual assignment, or assign additional sanctions as outlined in the UAB Academic Code of Conduct. TURNITIN - UAB reserves the right to use electronic means to detect and help prevent plagiarism. By enrolling at UAB, students agree to have course documents submitted to www.Turnitin.com or other means of electronic verification. All materials submitted to Turnitin.com will become source documents in Turnitin.com’s restricted access database, solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism in such documents. Students may be required by instructors to individually submit course documents electronically to Turnitin.com. Attendance: The number of unexcused absences permitted in a composition course will be one times the number of weekly meetings plus one day: 3 absences for T/Th classes or 4 absences

for a MWF class. Each additional unexcused absence will be considered excessive and will be penalized. Any absence in a composition class beyond those stipulated above will be considered excessive and penalized three percentage points off of the final course grade. Tardiness is defined as entering the classroom after roll is taken. Each tardy will count as ½ absence. Similarly, leaving class before it has ended will be counted as ½ absence. Students arriving after the roll has been called are responsible for notifying the instructor so they can be marked tardy rather than absent. The university regards certain absences as excused and in those instances requires that instructors provide an accommodation for the student who misses assignments, presentations, examinations, or other academic work of a substantive nature by virtue of these excused absences. Examples include the following: • Absences due to jury or military duty, provided that official documentation has been

provided to the instructor in a timely manner in advance. • Absences due to participation in university-sponsored activities when the student is

representing the university in an official capacity and as a critical participant, provided that the procedures below have been followed:

o Before the end of the add/drop period, students must provide their instructor a

schedule of anticipated excused absences in or with a letter explaining the nature of the expected absences from the director of the unit or department sponsoring the activity.

o If a change in the schedule occurs, students are responsible for providing their

instructors with advance written notification from the sponsoring unit or department.

• Absences due to other extenuating circumstances that instructors deem excused. Such

classification is at the discretion of the instructor and is predicated upon consistent treatment of all students. In these instances, instructors must devise a system for reasonable accommodation including, for example, policies allowing for dropped exams/quizzes, make-up exams, rescheduling of student classroom presentations or early or later submission of written assignments.

Writing Assignment Requirements

• Late work will not be accepted without penalty unless you make arrangements with your instructor for an extension before the due date. Otherwise, 10 points will be deducted from your final grade on the assignment for each class period the assignment is late. This applies to both formal papers and informal writing.

• Drafts must be turned in with all essays. Drafts should show significant changes in purpose, audience, organization, or evidence.

• You are required to keep hard copies of all graded assignments and electronic copies of

all drafts and assignments for the course. These copies are necessary in the event that you need to resubmit a missing assignment or if you should choose to file a grade appeal.

• Final copies should be typed and double-spaced with numbered pages and a title. Non-Harassment, Hostile Work/Class Environment: The UAB College of Arts and Sciences expects students to treat fellow students, their Course Instructors, other UAB faculty, and staff as adults and with respect. No form of hostile environment or harassment will be tolerated by any student or employee. Conferences: Individual or small-group conferences may be scheduled several times during the semester. Students should come to conferences prepared to discuss their work. A missed conference counts as an absence. The University Writing Center: The University Writing Center, located in Sterne Library 175, offers a number of free services for UAB students and faculty. The Writing Center offers 30-minute writing consultations that are open and free for all UAB students. Experienced tutors will help students at any stage of the writing process, from understanding the assignment and brainstorming ideas to revising and refining a final draft. While tutors do not edit for students, they can help writers learn about their common errors and develop better editing processes. To make an appointment, please visit the University Writing Center Website: http://www.uab.edu/writingcenter/ The Writing Center also accepts drop-in appointments, depending on availability. Students with Disabilities: If you anticipate accessibility issues related to the format or requirements of the course, please meet with your instructor to discuss ways to ensure your full participation. If you determine that formal, disability-related accommodations are necessary, it is very important that you be registered with Disability Support Services. If you have a disability but have not contacted Disability Support Services, please call 934-4205 or visit DSS at 516 Hill University Center. If you are registered with Disability Support Services, please make an appointment as soon as possible to discuss accommodations that may be necessary. Early Alert System (EAS): Your instructor may participate in an initiative at UAB to alert students who are at risk of getting a D, F, or W in their 100 or 200-level courses. This means that after mid-terms your instructor may flag those students who are falling into this category on BlazerNet. The EAS will generate an email to the student notifying them of their at-risk status and listing some resources where you might get assistance. Please read these emails when they come to you. If you receive an email with “Early Alert System (EAS)” as the sender or in the subject line, please be sure to read it. Pre-enrollment for English 102: Students currently enrolled in English 101 may pre-register for English 102 classes offered during the next semester during assigned registration times. However, you must earn a “C” or higher to satisfactorily complete English 101. Be warned that if you do not earn a “C” or higher in English 101, then you will be administratively withdrawn from English 102 if you pre-registered. It will be your responsibility to register for English 101 again.

Recommended But Not Required Policies Electronic Devices and Classroom Conduct: Cell phones should be muted and may not be used in class. Tablets and laptops may only be used with instructor permission and for activities that are related to the work of the class, such as taking notes or working on projects for the course.

Electronic Submissions: Electronic submissions are not acceptable unless special arrangements have been made. You may not assume that you have met a deadline by sending work in electronic form without permission. Withdrawals: The last day to drop/add courses is [INSERT DATE], and the last day to withdraw from courses with a W is [INSERT DATE].