how useful is eng 100 as a prerequisite for wi classes at …€¦ · abstract this exploratory...

1

How Useful Is ENG 100 as a Prerequisite for WI Classes at Leeward Community College?

by

Gail K.L. Levy, Professor CC Language Arts Division

Leeward Community College Spring 2014 Sabbatical Leave Report

June 1, 2014 Abstract This exploratory study examines the Writing Intensive (WI) program at Leeward Community College, describes the relationships between WI classes and ENG 100, Composition I, and questions the validity of ENG 100 as the prerequisite for the college’s WI classes. The study’s quantitative data tracking 1,866 students from ENG 100 through their first WI class from 2009-13 indicated that successful completion of ENG 100 could predict successful completion of WI classes. The more in-depth and difficult-to-analyze qualitative data gathered during the Spring 2014 semester from 50 WI syllabi and interviews of 8 WI instructors across the five academic divisions provided some supporting evidence of content and construct validity as well. The Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and the types of writing and skills taught and learned in ENG 100 appeared to contribute to and provide a foundation for all WI classes. Although there were obvious differences in course content and writing requirements at the micro level, the similarities between ENG 100 and WI classes at the macro level were significant enough to warrant future conversations and interactions between ENG 100 and WI instructors, as well as more oversight of the WI program by the Writing-Intensive Board. Those actions would probably strengthen students’ understanding and application of content, skills, and behaviors at both levels. Impetus for This Research Project There seem to be various opinions, and perhaps even some disagreements, in the University of Hawaii system about whether ENG 100, Composition I, should be a prerequisite for WI or W (Writing Intensive) classes or courses. Honolulu CC, Kapiolani CC, Leeward CC, and Windward CC require ENG 100 with a C or higher as a prerequisite; Windward’s policy goes into effect this Spring 2014 semester. Hawaii CC also requires ENG 100 as a prerequisite, but individual WI instructors make their own decisions about whether to accept a C or D as the necessary prerequisite grade. A similar flexibility exists at UH West Oahu. Its WI classes require the completion of or current enrollment in ENG 200, Composition II, or an equivalent such as ENG 209, Business Writing. The prerequisite grades (C or D) for ENG 100, which is a prerequisite for ENG 200, and for ENG 200 depend on the students’ majors or areas of concentration at West Oahu. Because ENG 100 is a prerequisite for ENG 200, ENG 100 also is, in effect, a WI prerequisite at West Oahu.

2

On the other hand, UH Manoa, UH Hilo, UH Maui College, and Kauai CC have no ENG 100 prerequisite for their WI classes. Still, by default most Manoa students complete ENG 100 or take it concurrently with their first WI class because they are required to take ENG 100 within their first twenty-four credits. AT UH Hilo there are already existing prerequisites for many courses, including its literature courses, whether they carry the WI designation or not. Maui College’s view is that any student can benefit from the WI emphasis on using writing as a tool for learning, regardless of skill level, and that students in the pre-college level need choices beyond developmental-level courses. In addition, on a smaller campus, an ENG 100 prerequisite may create scheduling and low enrollment problems. Circulated among the seven community colleges was a proposal (UHCC Policy draft dated May 2013) to standardize the completion of English100 or an equivalent transfer-level writing course as a pre- or co-requisite with a C or higher. At present, however, there appears to be no strong consensus in the UH system regarding ENG 100 as a prerequisite for WI classes. As an instructor who has been teaching ENG 100 at Leeward Community College for over twenty years, I have always believed that if my students pass ENG 100 with a C or higher, they will be better prepared for and be more successful in Writing Intensive classes, which are usually 200-level classes at Leeward. It seems logical to me that students who practice writing in ENG 100 will be better writers in subsequent classes that require writing. But is this belief and assumption supported by the data? A sabbatical leave in the Spring 2014 semester afforded me the opportunity to examine more critically my assumptions and the relationships between ENG 100 and the WI classes at Leeward CC. How well do students who pass ENG 100 do in their first WI classes? What is the overlap and “goodness of fit” between the knowledge and skills being taught and learned in ENG 100 and those being taught and learned in WI classes? Can WI teachers suggest any changes in the ENG 100 curriculum that would make for a smoother, more successful transition between ENG 100 and their classes? These were the research questions that I had hoped to finally answer with quantitative data extracted from Banner, the UH student records database, and qualitative data collected from WI course syllabi and instructor interviews. I wish I had had the time and resources to conduct a thorough study of these relationships and to preface the data analysis with a literature search and an explanation of the research methods used. (Whatever documents and sources referenced but are not found in this report or the accompanying appendices can be provided upon request.) However, such an in-depth study would probably have taken three years of full-time work, as did my Ph.D. dissertation on how community college ENG 100 instructors graded essays. Using John Creswell’s (2003) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches as a guide, I implemented a mixed methods sequential exploratory quantitative-qualitative research design, with the emphasis on the qualitative component, as best I could.

3

ENGLISH 100, Composition I ENG 100, or its ESL equivalents for non-native speakers of English, is the only course that meets the Written Communication Foundation requirement for an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree in the University of Hawaii system. Other degree requirements allow students to choose from several options, but all students must pass ENG 100. Thus, in relation to other courses, there are usually more sections of ENG 100 taught by more different instructors on all ten UH campuses. In addition to, or perhaps because of, the large numbers of students and instructors involved in this one course, ENG 100 is also the highest-ranking “gatekeeper” or “gateway” course in the University of Hawaii Community (UHCC) system. A “gatekeeper” has been defined by the UHCC system as a course that (1) enrolls at least one half of one percent of the college’s annual unduplicated headcount and (2) has a student success rate (percentage of students earning a C or higher grade) below 70%. A grade of C is the “industry standard” used in calculating success rates, even though students still obtain credit for courses if they receive a D grade. As shown in the following tables provided by Guy Nishimoto, Leeward CC’s Institutional Effectiveness Officer, ENG 100 has consistently remained the highest enrolled course (about 13% of the total Head Count) and a significant gatekeeper course (an average Student Success Rate of about 60%) at Leeward CC. Although it is difficult to compute from the data in Table 1, if the students who withdrew from the courses were taken out the denominator in the calculation of the Success Rates, those percentages would then be higher. Faculty are very concerned that that their student success rates may be used as a measure of their teaching effectiveness and that they may be held somewhat responsible for those students who do not attend class and withdraw or remain on the class roster and receive an F. Hence, Withdrawal Rates are also included in the tables below. TABLE 1.1: Top Gatekeeper Courses for AY (Academic Year) 2012-2013 Rank Course Fall &

Spring Head Count

Registered In Course

% of Head Count

#C or Better

Success Rate (with Ws)

Sections # of Ws

WRate

1 ENG 100

15,177 2,055 13.5% 1,254 61.0% 130 223 10.9%

2 MATH 082

15,177 1,537 10.1% 850 55.3% 110 113 7.4%

3 PSY 100

15,177 1,457 9.6% 933 64.0% 44 101 6.9%

4 SP 151 15,177 1,325 8.7% 891 67.3% 48 85 6.4% 5 HIST

151 15,177 1,228 8.1% 836 68.1% 42 82 6.7%

4

TABLE 1.2: Top Gatekeeper Courses for AY 2011-2012

TABLE 1.3: Top Gatekeeper Courses for AY 2010-2011 Rank Course Fall &

Spring Head Count


% of Head Count

#C or Better


Sections # of Ws

WRate

1 ENG 100

15,119 1,925 12.7% 1,150 59.7% 100 185 9.6%

2 PSY 100

15,119 1,569 10.4% 990 63.1% 46 104 6.6%

3 HIST 151

15,119 1,197 7.9% 796 66.5% 35 79 6.6%

4 ENG 022

15,119 1,972 7.1% 650 60.6% 56 80 7.5%

5 SOC 100

15,119 824 5.5% 575 69.8% 24 42 5.1%

ENG 100 Student Learning Outcomes and Essay Assignments Stated in “Criteria for Courses That Satisfy the Written Component of the University of Hawai’i General Education Written Communication/Communication Skills/English Communications Requirement” (4/28/00) are the guidelines for all ENG 100 courses, and its equivalents, offered on all ten campuses (see Appendix A). “While in this introductory writing course, students learn—through recursive writing processes, teacher and peer response, reading and research—to develop complex ideas in a variety of genres and for differing audiences.” Even though there are no uniform Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) across all campuses, at Leeward CC these system-wide criteria have been incorporated into its ENG 100 SLOs, which are stated in all ENG 100 syllabi:

Rank Course Fall & Spring Head Count


% of Head Count

#C or Better


Sections # of Ws

WRate

1 ENG 100

15,144 2,000 13.2% 1.213 60.7% 115 196 9.8%

2 MATH 082

15,144 1,498 9.9% 859 57.3% 107 93 6.2%

3 PSY 100

15,144 1,481 9.8% 930 62.8% 43 97 6.5%

4 HIST 151

15,144 1,343 8.9% 869 64.7% 40 95 7.1%

5 ENG 022

15,144 1,066 7.0% 689 64.6% 63 55 5.2%

5

“Upon successful completion of English 100, students should be able to complete the following as independent learners: 1. Use a multi-step writing process that includes drafting, editing, and proofreading while making use of written and oral feedback. 2. Write compositions, including an in-class essay on an assigned topic, that are appropriate to a particular audience and purpose. Texts will have a main point and supporting ideas developed with specific and logically organized details. 3. Compose complex and well-reasoned texts that incorporate source material appropriately. Skill 1: Locate, assess, and use academically appropriate material. Skill 2: Use and combine sources without plagiarizing. Skill 3: Give credit to others when using their words and ideas in writing. 4. Apply to writing the rules and conventions of grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling. 5. Demonstrate effective use of study skills and college success strategies.” At Leeward CC, ENG 100 instructors assign a variety of short assignments to help their students meet the ENG 100 SLOs, but approximately 40%-60% of the students’ final grades are based on the more extensive essays. During the Spring 2012 semester, fifteen out of the twenty-three instructors teaching ENG 100 that semester submitted answers to my survey asking about the numbers and types of essays they assigned. The majority stated that they assigned five essays over the course of a semester, starting with a personal narrative and ending with an argumentative essay based on research. (Instructors may assign specific articles for students to analyze, but “research” implies that students also have to search for and find articles themselves, thus enabling student to learn how to determine the credibility of the sources used in their essays.) Most also stated that they required that their students write a timed, in-class essay, which often measures skills and knowledge somewhat different from those needed for out-of-class essays (See Appendix B for more detailed results of this survey.) Based on this survey’s results, the Writing Discipline met at the beginning of the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 semesters to determine if all ENG 100 instructors would agree on some specific guidelines to ensure more consistency across sections. The following were adopted: 1. ENG 100 students should write a minimum of five essays in the course; at least one of the five should be a timed, in-class essay and another essay should require some research and use sources. 2. ENG 100 instructors should provide feedback on essays during the writing process prior to the submission of the final draft.

6

3. By Week 10 in the semester, ENG 100 instructors should make available students’ current grade status, thus giving students the opportunity to consider if they should withdraw from the class before the Withdrawal Deadline. Because of its importance not only in the University of Hawaii system but also nationwide as First-Year or Freshman Composition, ENG 100 probably generates more documents, discussions, and controversies than any other course in two- and four-year institutions of higher education, e.g., what should be taught and learned in this course and in all the classes, how to assess the essays written by students, which criteria, rubrics, and grading scales to use, and how to improve student success rates. However, this longitudinal study views ENG 100 from a slightly different perspective, that of the “outsiders” who teach the subsequent course rather than the “insiders” who teach the target course. Whether ENG 100 completers succeed in their first WI classes because of the skills, knowledge, and behaviors they learn in ENG 100 or whether other independent variables are responsible for their successful WI completion is difficult to answer with just quantitative data (“correlation does not prove causality”). I therefore hoped that qualitative data collected from WI syllabi and discussions with a representative sample of WI instructors at Leeward CC could provide more answers to my research question, “How useful is ENG 100 as a prerequisite for WI classes at Leeward CC?” Writing Intensive Classes As with ENG 100, there are system-wide guidelines for WI classes across the ten campuses. Instructors on each campus are invited by their campus’ Writing-Intensive Board to apply for a WI or W designation or certification for one section of a course, for some sections of a course, or for all sections of a course. This designation is not permanently attached to a specific class or course, and each campus board periodically reviews all of its WI classes and their instructors to ensure that both continue to meet the WI hallmarks. WI Hallmarks The following five hallmarks were first articulated in “Policies and Procedures for University of Hawai’i Writing-Intensive Programs to provide for Inter-Campus Articulation of Writing-Intensive Course Designations” (April 1988). Adapted from the UH Manoa’s Writing Intensive Hallmarks, the Leeward Community College Writing-Intensive Focus Board uses the following guidelines, some of which are problematic, to evaluate proposed WI courses for its campus:

" 1. The course uses writing to promote the learning of course materials. Instructors assign formal and informal writing, both in class and out, to increase students' understanding of course material as well as to improve writing skills. [“Formal” writing is generally defined as writing that is revised and includes more than one draft, whereas “informal” writing is not revised and has only one draft. Notice, however, that according to Hallmark 4, drafts and in-class exams are not counted toward the 4000-word WI requirement.]

7

2. The course provides interaction between teacher and students while students do assigned writing; in effect, the instructor acts as an expert and the student as an apprentice in a community of writers. Types of interaction will vary. For example, a professor who requires the completion of one long essay may review sections of the essay, write comments on drafts, and be available for conferences. The professor who requires several short papers may demonstrate techniques for drafting and revising in the classroom, give guidance during the composition of the papers, and consult with students after they complete their papers.

3. Writing contributes significantly to each student's course grade. Writing assignments, not including in-class exams and drafts, must make up at least forty percent (40%) of each student's course grade. [Manoa’s hallmark states that if writing assignments do not comprise at least 40% of the course grade, then students must satisfactorily complete all writing assignments in order to pass the course with a “D” or better; this wide range between 40% and 100% completion concerns many WI instructors. Just how many of the WI assignments have to be completed and turned in? If 60% of the students’ final grades does not depend on the designated WI assignments, then does writing contribute “significantly” to their final grades? Is it is possible, though perhaps not probable, for students to pass the course and receive WI credit without completing all the WI assignments?]

4. The course requires students to do a substantial amount of writing--a minimum of 4000 words, or about 16 pages. This may include informal writing. Depending on the course content, students may write analytic essays, critical reviews, journals, lab reports, research reports, or reaction papers, and other types of writing. In-class exams and drafts are not counted toward the 4000-word minimum. [Why are journals counted and not in-class exams, if both are written under similar conditions?]

5. To allow for meaningful professor-student interaction on each student's writing, the class is restricted to 20 students.” [Some instructors do enroll more students with the expectation that some students will soon withdraw, but at what number are the interactions between instructor and students negatively affected and the course no longer deserves the WI designation? At the beginning of the Spring 2014 semester, there were ten classes with slightly more than 20 students; after the Withdrawal Deadline there were four such classes.]

In their course syllabi, some instructors have quoted the entire description of the five hallmarks, but most, though not all, have simply copied the short version written by the campus’ WI Board: “In this Writing Intensive course, you will do a substantial amount of writing which should help you learn the course content and also improve your writing skills. Your instructor will help you with your writing by giving you instructions in class and providing you with individual feedback. While Writing Intensive courses can be demanding, many students find that the act of writing helps them to think more deeply about the subject. In addition,

8

improved writing skills will benefit you not only in your future studies, but also in your employment and personal life.” UH Manoa now requires 5 WI classes, with 2 at the 300 level or above; UH West Oahu requires 3, with all three at the 300 level or above; UH Hilo requires 3, with 1 at the 300 level or above; Honolulu CC, Kapiolani CC, Leeward CC, Maui College, and Windward CC require 2 at the 100 or 200 level; and Hawaii CC and Kauai CC require 1 at the 100 or 200 level. In order for students to receive WI credit, Hawaii CC, Honolulu CC, Kapiolani CC, and Kauai CC require a grade of C or higher for a WI class; at UH Hilo and UH West Oahu, C is also required for certain majors. The other campuses--UH Manoa, Leeward CC, Maui College, and Windward CC--grant WI credit to all students who earn a grade of D for a WI class. Students, and probably even faculty unfamiliar with the WI philosophy, may wonder why courses that require a lot of writing, perhaps even more than the WI minimum of sixteen pages, are not also awarded the WI designation to fulfill the varying graduation requirements across the campuses. As explained by Tom Hilgers, former Director of the UH-Manoa Writing Program, “In a conventional class, students are often asked to read, think, discuss, and then write or take an exam, pretty much in that order. In a writing-intensive class, professors ask students to write, read, write as they read, write as they think, write before they discuss, write after they discuss, and then read and discuss even more in order to write again.” The WI assignments are not written by students in a vacuum but evolve in interactive processes with the texts, as well as with the instructor and other students. Because the writing process is often personal and intense and the class size is smaller than those of non-WI sections, the instructor is usually very aware of how much each student knows and doesn’t know about the subject matter. In addition, the WI classes and courses themselves do not exist in a vacuum. The individual classes and courses are unified into a program on each campus with orientation and/or training provided to the WI faculty and tutorial assistance provided to the WI students. The campus program is administered by its Writing-Intensive Board, which decides which classes and courses on its campus meet the WI guidelines and what the appropriate prerequisites, if any, are for its WI offerings. The ten campus boards are represented on the system-wide UH Standing Committee on Written Communication, which annually reviews the WI programs on all campuses—the program support, course designation process, evaluation procedures, and faculty-training program. Longitudinal Quantitative Data To discover how many of Leeward CC’s ENG 100 students succeeded in their first WI class (maturation increases the threat to internal validity as the time between enrollment in ENG 100 and enrollment in a WI class increases), as well as to identify specific instructors to interview in the qualitative component of this mixed methods study, I requested Banner data from the college’s Office of Planning, Policy, and Assessment during the Fall 2013 semester. The data captured the students who had earned a C or higher in ENG 100, the

9

prerequisite for WI classes at Leeward CC, from Fall 2008 through Spring 2011 (not including summer sessions) and then enrolled in a WI class on any campus in the UH system within six terms (Spring 2009 through Spring 2013, including summer sessions). (About 95% of Leeward CC’s WI students registered for a WI class at Leeward, in contrast with 3% who registered at Kapiolani CC; therefore, there was little migration to other campuses.) Those ENG 100 students who were qualified to register for WI classes but did not do so within six terms were assumed to have disappeared and joined other students in “the leaky pipeline” between a lower-level prerequisite course and its higher-level subsequent course. Tables 2-4 tracking this specific sample organized into six cohorts were provided by Shuqi Wu, Leeward CC’s Institutional Analyst. TABLE 2: Time to Enrollment in the First WI Class ENG 100

SP 09

SU 09

FA 09

SP 10

SU 10

FA 10

SP 11

SU 11

FA 11

SP 12

SU 12

FA 12

SP 13

Total

FA 08

105 7 85 63 6 40 306

SP 09 18 88 75 5 48 15 249 FA 09

167 7 93 65 3 40 375

SP 10

10 113 72 3 36 19 253

FA 10

174 11 121 60 10 37 413

SP 11 10 104 72 4 49 31 270 Total 1,866 A total of 1,866 students in the sample made the transition from ENG 100 to a WI class, but not necessarily during the semester immediately after they had passed ENG 100. The effects of the lag time between ENG 100 and the first WI class and the subjects’ maturation would be interesting to explore but are beyond the scope of this study. More easily answered by the quantitative data were questions concerning the students’ progress through the sequence. How many could have, but didn’t make the transition? How many who made the transition earned a C or higher in the WI class? TABLE 3: Progress from ENG 100 Through First WI Classes Term # of Students

Completing ENG 100 # of Students Enrolled in First WI Class

Success Rate in First WI Class

Fall 2008 591 306 82% Spring 2009 437 249 78% Fall 2009 643 375 79% Spring 2010 481 253 76% Fall 2010 676 413 75% Spring 2011 470 270 78% Total 3,226 1,866 78% (average)

10

Of the 1, 866 ENG 100 completers who could have registered for a WI class, 58% actually did (1,866 divided by 3,226); the other 42% dropped out of the sequence. Thus, if one of the primary functions of ENG 100 is to prepare students for WI classes, then ENG 100 appeared to have served that purpose for a little over a half of the students who completed ENG 100 between Fall 2008 and Spring 2011. On the other hand, when these ENG 100 completers did enroll in WI classes, they finished the WI classes with success rates (75%-82%) higher than those obtained in the ENG 100 prerequisite. Although a grade of C or higher was used to calculate success rates, with a D, students earned credit for a WI class and met the WI graduation requirement at Leeward CC. Therefore, ENG 100 appears to have good predictive validity: if students pass ENG 100, they will most likely pass their WI classes. Previous WI Student Surveys Leeward CC’s Writing-Intensive Focus Board conducted two WI student surveys in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013. These survey subjects (241 for the Fall 2012 survey and 236 for the Spring 2013 survey) were not the same as the students tracked in this study, except possibly those who enrolled in their first WI class in the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters. Nevertheless, relationships between WI classes and ENG 100 can be inferred from some of the questions asked in these surveys: (1) What types of writing did you do in your WI class? (2) What types of writing helped you understand the course content and/or become a more effective writer? (3) What types of feedback helped you understand the course content and/or helped you become a more effective writer? Table 4.1: Types of Writing Done in WI Classes Type of Writing Fall

2012 Count

Fall 2012 %age

Spring 2013 Count

Spring 2013 %age

Discussion board or e-mail posting 77 31.95 83 35.17 Essays 206 85.48 178 75.42 Free writing 94 39.00 93 39.41 In-class writing 98 40.66 95 40.25 Journals 39 16.18 44 18.64 Lab reports 6 2.49 12 5.08 Learning logs 34 14.11 17 7.20 Memos and/or other correspondence 41 17.01 45 19.07 Reports 80 33.20 72 30.51 Research or term paper(s) 132 54.77 135 57.20 Reviews and/or response paper(s) 153 63.49 138 58.47 Summaries 118 48.96 107 45.34 Written comments on my classmates’ writing 128 53.11 130 55.08 Other 35 14.52 32 13.56

11

Table 4.2: Types of Writing Helpful to Understanding Course Content and/or Becoming a More Effective Writer Types of Writing Fall

2012 Count

Fall 2012 %age

Spring 2013 Count

Spring 2013 %age

Discussion board or e-mail posting 46 19.09 62 26.27 Essays 148 61.41 125 52.97 Free writing 60 24.90 61 25.85 In-class writing 59 24.48 59 25.00 Journals 26 10.79 31 13.14 Lab reports 4 1.66 11 4.66 Learning logs 14 5.81 12 5.08 Memos and/or other correspondence 32 13.28 47 19.92 Reports 53 21.99 60 25.42 Research or term paper(s) 101 41.91 100 42.37 Reviews and/or response paper(s) 120 49.79 113 47.88 Summaries 77 31.95 73 30.93 Written comments on my classmates’ writing 86 35.68 91 38.56 None 17 7.05 12 5.08 Other 21 8.71 17 7.20 Table 4.3: Types of Feedback Helpful to Understanding Course Content and/or Becoming a More Effective Writer Types of Feedback Fall

2012 Count

Fall 2012 %age

Spring 2013 Count

Spring 2013 %age

Written and/or online comments about grammar and mechanics

142 58.92 146 61.86

Written and/or online comments about ideas, organization, development, and focus

157 65.15 149 63.14

Interaction with my instructor (in face-to-face, telephone, or online conferences or via e-mail exchanges)

162 67.22 162 68.64

Interaction with my fellow classmates (in peer review sessions, group projects, or discussion board postings, or e-mail or other online exchanges)

147 61.00 159 67.37

Interaction with other Leeward CC faculty, tutors, or writing consultants (in face-to-face, telephone, or online conferences or via e-mail exchanges

59 24.48 56 23.73

No feedback received 12 7.47 7 2.97 Feedback did not help me learn course contents and/or become a more effective writer

18 7.47 13 5.51

Other 6 2.49 8 3.39

12

Although the specific characteristics of an “essay” often vary from instructor to instructor, the fact that it was the most frequent type of writing identified by WI students in Table 4.1--206 (85.48%) students in the fall and 178 (75.42%) in the spring semesters--is evidence of a strong connection with ENG 100, for which students are required to write five essays. The other types of writing assigned in ENG 100--research papers, response papers, and peer comments—were also identified by over 50% of students as occurring in their WI classes. So it appears that the types of writing frequently assigned in ENG 100 are also frequently assigned in WI classes. Although the more specific characteristics of these types of writing were not described in the student surveys, from Table 4.3 we can perhaps infer what they were if 157 (65.15%) and 149 (63.14%) of the WI students believed that the comments they received about ideas, organization, development, and focus were helpful in the writing process. Also, comments about grammar and mechanics were deemed to be helpful by 142 (58.92%) and 146 (61.86%) of the WI students. As explained in Appendix B, many ENG 100 instructors generally look for similar traits when grading their students’ essays: a thesis statement/claim supported by specific details organized into paragraphs that contain grammatically correct sentences. The basic characteristics of “good” written products and grading criteria appear to be the same the same no matter what the subject. In these surveys, WI students were also asked questions about the writing process and the types of feedback they received from others. In Table 4.3, 157 (65.15%) and 149 (63.14%) students indicated that they had interactions with their instructors, and 147 (61.00%) and 159 (67.37%) students indicated that they had interactions with their classmates. As stated earlier, these interactions during the writing process, especially between the students and instructors, are the most important hallmark of WI classes and the justification for the 20-student cap for WI classes. It is hoped that the 12 (7.47%) and the 7 (2.97 %) students who indicated that they received no feedback were unreliable; otherwise, their WI classes were not WI classes. This practice of obtaining feedback from instructors and peers during the writing process has been the bedrock of ENG 100 and Freshman Composition since the beginning of the late 1960s and early ‘70s, when the “teach the process, not the product” mantra began its ascent. According to Pullman (1999), in this paradigm shift away from the current-traditional rhetoric pedagogy that had held sway from the 1880s, “All students in progressive classrooms were encouraged to revise their papers before they were graded, to seek peer council, and to get feedback from the professor before and during revisions. The single preparatory outline was replaced by multiple heuristic drafts” (p.19). However, while composition theorists and instructors may value the written products and the writing process taught in WI classes and in ENG 100, were they also valued by the WI students who were surveyed? The first question and the answers recorded in Table 4.1 simply asked WI students to describe their assignments, but the second and third questions and the answers recorded in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 asked students if they believed that what they wrote and did, helped them to learn the course content and to write better. The decreases in the count and percentages in Table 4.2 seem to indicate a weaker belief on the

13

part of WI students in the underlying theoretical assumptions held by theorists and instructors. One hundred forty-eight (61.41%) and 125 (52.97%) students reported that writing essays was helpful, a decrease of 58 (24.07%) and 54 (22.45%) from those who reported that they wrote essays. All the other types of writing that received at least 50% in Table 4.1, indicating that the majority of the WI students had done those types of writing, received less that 50% in Table 4.2, suggesting that majority of the WI students did not feel that the writing helped them. Especially puzzling is the fact that many WI students wrote comments on their classmates’ writing (128 or 53.11% and 130 or 55.08% in Table 4.1) and yet only 86 or 35.68% and 91 or 38.56% students in Table 4.2 thought that that feedback practice, one that is emphasized in ENG 100, helped them learn the course content and/or become better writers. On the other hand, in Table 4.3, 147 (61.00%) and 159 (67.37%) students stated that they found the interactions with their classmates, which included but were not limited to peer feedback, helpful in reaching the WI goals. Also judged helpful was the feedback from instructors (162 or 67.22% and 162 or 68.64% students). So if the majority of WI students regarded the feedback they received as helpful to understanding course content and/or becoming a more effective writer, why did they also imply in Table 4.2 that the writing assignments were not helpful? How can these various discrepancies exist if the writing process is an integral part of the written product? Perhaps the interconnectivity between the process and product may be clearer in the instructors’ minds than in the students’? Or perhaps these survey questions were not well constructed or understood? In any case, these survey results generated more questions than answers about the implementation and benefits of the writing process in WI classes. Leeward CC WI Classes and Instructors The table below identifies all the WI classes and their instructors taken by the ENG 100 completers from Spring 2009 until Spring 2013, although only a limited number of WI classes were offered in any one semester. For example, during the Fall 2013 semester, 71 WI classes were offered (with 16 sections of ENG 200, Composition II, being the highest number of sections for any one course), and 1,209 students were enrolled in these WI classes at the beginning of the semester. During the Spring 2014 semester, 76 WI classes were offered (with 18 sections of ENG 200), and 1,362 students were enrolled in them at the beginning of the semester (1/28/14). (See Appendix C for lists of the Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 WI classes.) TABLE 5: WI Classes Taken by ENG 100 Completers at Leeward CC (Spring 2009-Spring 2013)

Arts and Humanities Business

Business Technology

Language Arts

Math and Natural Sciences

Social Sciences

Grand Total

AMST211 21 21

Kosasa, Eiko 21 21

AMST212 15 15

Kosasa, Eiko 15 15

14


Business Technology

Language Arts


Social Sciences

Grand Total

ASAN204 2 2

Liongson, Raymund L. 2 2

ASAN205 2 2


ASAN298 29 29


BIOL171L 3 3

Neupane, Kabi 3 3

BIOL172L 1 1

Stanton, Frank G. 1 1

BUSN269 14 1 15

May, Stanley K. 14 1 15

BUSN277 5 2 7

May, Stanley K. 5 2 7

BUSN279 6 6

May, Stanley K. 6 6

COM210H 49 49

Kaya, Douglas H. 49 49

DRAM101 1 1

DeMoville, Kemuel R. 1 1

ENG200 360 360

Boydstun, Jeremiah S. 16 16

Breitenfeldt, Jeffrey A. 3 3

De Ste Croix, James B. 8 8

Fujioka-Imai, Kathryn 23 23

Igarashi, Michelle M. 1 1

Lee, Meredith J. 75 75

Maslanka, Christopher W. 11 11

Matsumoto, Donna T. 50 50

Miyake, Wendy L. 4 4

Reisweber, Mia S. 7 7

Reyes, Brandi L. 23 23

Risch, Marla J. 11 11

Sanger, Susan A. 6 6

Soares, Colleen J. 2 2

Tanaka, Steven L. 17 17

Waldman, Susan 48 48

Won, Frances K. 4 4

Wyatt, Danny O. 51 51

ENG204 127 127

Lee, Juliet S. 89 89


Nakano, Mary A. 3 3

15


Business Technology

Language Arts


Social Sciences

Grand Total

Van Der Tuin, Melanie K.

16 16

ENG207 10 10


ENG208 15 15

Kuribayashi, Laurie A. 3 3


12 12

ENG209 158 158

Herr, Stephen P. 11 11

Hurley, Pat K. 124 124

Uyeno, Lani A. 21 21


2 2

ENG211 26 26

Bird, David F. 16 16

Uyeno, Lani A. 10 10

ENG225 63 63

Wood, Susan M. 63 63

ENG250 80 80

Hansen, Christine M. 1 1

Lum, Susan K. 34 34

Oishi, Michael T. 14 14

Robideau, Jennifer A. 13 13

Sims, Leanne 18 18

ENG251 44 44

Nester, Michael 28 28



ENG252 32 32


Lum, Susan K. 8 8


ENG253 56 56


Lum, Susan K. 18 18



ENG254 50 50


Lum, Susan K. 16 16


ENG255 110 110

16


Business Technology

Language Arts


Social Sciences

Grand Total


Lum, Susan K. 31 31




Sims, Leanne 13 13

ENG256 91 91


Lum, Susan K. 9 9




ENG257N 57 57

Lum, Susan K. 57 57

HIST241 2 2

Lococo, Paul 2 2

HIST242 6 6

Knuuti, Keith 6 6

HIST244 9 9

Knuuti, Keith 9 9

HIST251 6 6

Khan, Abdul K. 6 6

HIST260 6 6

Lococo, Paul 6 6

HIST281 27 27

Fujita, James H. 27 27

HIST282 21 21

Fujita, James H. 21 21

HIST284 14 14

Ickes, Betty P. 4 4

Kamahele, Momiala M.

2 2

Nakamura, Barry S. 8 8

HUM261 99 99

Archer, Luukia T. 53 53

Keliikuli, Genai U. 46 46

HUM262 4 4

Tupou, Michelle M. 4 4

HWST261 16 16



HWST270 7 7

Losch, Tracie K. 7 7

17


Business Technology

Language Arts


Social Sciences

Grand Total

HWST298 2 2


IS250H 12 12

Chernisky, Joseph J. 12 12

JOUR205 15 15

Berner, Ann C. 15 15

LING102 56 56

Bird, David F. 35 35

Hurley, Pat K. 21 21

PHIL211 3 3

Stroble, James A. 1 1

West, James A. 2 2

PSY240 6 6

Estrada, Zenaida R. 6 6

REL151 2 2

Laycock, Steven W. 2 2

REL202 1 1

Walters, Christine L. 1 1

REL204 32 32

Sakashita, Jay S. 32 32

REL205 5 5


REL207 15 15

Laycock, Steven W. 15 15

SOC100 1 1

Bopp, Patricia J. 1 1

SP251 167 167

Asamoto, Paula A. 4 4

Fujikane, Wayne 9 9

Hamada, Michele M. 1 1

LaMotte, May T. 15 15

Mitiguy, Patricia K. 68 68

Takamure, Christy R. 36 36

Yokotake, Carleen S. 34 34

WS151 22 22

Adler, Corey T. 19 19

Bopp, Patricia J. 3 3

Grand Total 843 25 3 1046 4 65 1,986

There is a discrepancy in the total numbers of students enrolled in WI classes in Table 5 (1,986) and in Tables 2 and 3 (1, 866) because it was impossible to select the “first” WI class taken if students enrolled in two WI classes in the same semester. Under those circumstances, two classes and two instructors were given credit for the same student, and

18

the 1,986 total includes those students who were double counted. Therefore, the more accurate WI headcount is 1,866. It may also seem odd that many of the student enrollment figures for specific classes and instructors in Table 5 are very small. How could it be that Kabi Neupane’s Biology 171 Lab had only one student in it? But remember that only the original sample of 3,226 ENG 100 completers were tracked in this study, and one of the threats to internal validity for longitudinal studies is the mortality or attrition of the subjects over time. So even though most of the WI classes identified in the table probably had twenty students in the class at the beginning of a semester, the enrollment cap for WI classes, there was only one student from this study’s sample in Professor Neupane’s lab. As with all classes, if WI classes do not attract enough students, these classes are usually cancelled before the semester begins. In the Fall 2013 semester, there were two sections of BIO 171L, with 19 students enrolled in one section and 12 in the other at the beginning of the semester. In the Spring 2014 semester, 22 students were enrolled in one section and 20 in the other at the beginning of the semester. Given these data parameters and limitations, Table 5 indicates that all five instructional divisions (Business and Business Technology are combined into one division) at one time or another between Spring 2009 and Spring 2013 offered WI classes (or WI courses that were awarded a blanket WI designation for all their classes or sections). The division enrolling the highest number of WI students in this sample was Language Arts (1,046), which was followed by Arts and Humanities (843). The division with the fewest number of WI students was Mathematics and Natural Sciences Division (4), which was followed by Business/Business Technology (28). Between these two extremes was the Social Sciences Division with 65 students. As expected, these total enrollment figures identify the two divisions that consistently house the more robust WI courses and the more experienced WI instructors: the Language Arts and the Arts and Humanities Divisions. The WI courses enrolling the largest numbers of students were 1. ENG 200, Composition II, with 360 students taught by 18 different instructors; 2. SP 251, Principles of Effective Public Speaking, with 167 students taught by 7 instructors; 3. ENG 209, Business Writing, with 158 students taught by 4 instructors; 4. ENG 204, Introduction to Creative Writing, with 127 students taught by 4 instructors; and 5. ENG 255, Types of Literature I (Short Story and Novel), with 110 students taught by 6 instructors. Only the last course on that list, ENG 255, was located in the Arts and Humanities Division. However, three of the five individual instructors who interacted with the largest numbers of WI students in the sample were members of that division--Susan Lum, Michael Oishi, and Michael Nester--probably because there were fewer literature instructors in the Arts and

19

Humanities Division teaching more different WI courses more frequently than did the many composition and speech instructors in the Language Arts Division. The rankings were as follows: 1. Susan Lum, with a total of 173 students in ENG 250, American Literature (34 students); ENG 252, British Literature II (1789-Present Day) (8); ENG 253, World Literature I (Beginnings-1650) (18); ENG 254, World Literature II (1650 to Present) (16); ENG 255, Types of Literature I (Short Story and Novel) (31); ENG 256, Types of Literature II (Drama and Poetry) (9); and ENG 257N, Themes in Literature: Literature and Film (57). Except for ENG 251, British Literature (Middle Ages to 1789), this instructor taught all the literature courses listed in the catalog under the Arts and Humanities Division. 2. Pat Hurley, with a total of 145 students in ENG 209, Business Writing (124), and LING 102, Introduction to the Study of Language (21). 3. Michael Oishi, with a total of 134 students in ENG 250, American Literature (14); ENG 251, British Literature I (Middle Ages to 1789) (9); ENG 252, British Literature II (1789-Present Day) (6); ENG 253, World Literature I (Beginnings-1650) (20); ENG 254, World Literature II (1650 to Present) (19); ENG 255, Types of Literature I (Short Story and Novel) (35); and ENG 256, Types of Literature II (Drama and Poetry) (19). Except for ENG 257N, Themes in Literature: Literature and Film, this instructor taught all of the literature courses listed in the catalog under the Arts and Humanities Division. 4. Juliet Lee, with a total of 89 students in ENG 204, Introduction to Creative Writing (89). 5. Michael Nester, with a total of 82 students in ENG 250, American Literature (14); ENG 251, British Literature I (Middle Ages to 1789) (9); ENG 252, British literature II (1789-Present Day) (6); ENG 253, World Literature I (Beginnings-1650) (20); ENG 254, World Literature II (1650 to Present) (19); ENG 255, Types of Literature I (Short Story and Novel) (35); and ENG 256, Types of Literature II (Drama and Poetry) (19). Like Susan Lum and Michael Oishi, this instructor taught all of the literature courses except for one. However, since the time when the data were collected for Table 5, the high student enrollment figures for the literature courses and instructors have declined, and Michael Nester has taken a position at another college. Fewer credits are now needed from the Arts and Humanities Division to fulfill the Diversification Requirements for the Associate of Arts degree (six rather than the previous nine credits). Also, more courses are now being offered in that division to compete with the literature courses for the Diversification and WI graduation requirements. So although Leeward CC still requires two WI classes for graduation, the popularity of specific WI classes and courses can vary widely depending on many factors. Even before I started to examine the WI course syllabi and interview WI instructors, it seemed logical that there would be many similarities between the writing assignments given in these WI composition and literature classes and those given in ENG 100, if only because the instructors teaching them have similar training and perspectives. All of the

20

Language Arts Division instructors who teach the division’s 200-level classes have also taught ENG 100, most of the ENG 100 instructors have a master’s degree in literature, and all of them probably do a lot of reading and writing themselves. So even if the composition and literature courses are not housed in the same division and taught by the same instructors, the instructors themselves share many similar characteristics. Much more intriguing and unknown to me at the beginning of this study are the similarities and differences between ENG 100 instructors and those teaching science, business, and social science classes. Why are BIO 171L, Introduction to Biology I Lab, and BIO 172L, Introduction to Biology II Lab, the only two WI courses in the Mathematics and Natural Sciences Division? Why is Stan May the only instructor in the Business Division teaching WI classes (BUSN 269, Supervision; BUSN 277, International Business Protocol; and BUSN 279, International Business Analysis)? Although there are slightly more WI classes taught by more different instructors in the Social Sciences Division (AMST 211, Contemporary American Issues: Domestic; AMST 212, Contemporary American Issues: World; PSY 240, Developmental Psychology; SOC 100, Survey of General Sociology; and WS 151, Introduction to Women’s Studies), how different are the training, perspectives, and approaches of those instructors from those of ENG 100 instructors? Those are just some of the questions underlying the more direct WI questions I constructed to interview a representative sample of WI instructors. (See Appendix D for the interview questions.) Writing Intensive Class Syllabi During the Spring 2014 semester, as of 2/18/14 (enrollment census data), 1,333 students were registered in 76 WI classes. (See Appendix C for the list of the Spring 2014 WI classes.) After the Withdrawal Deadline of 3/20/14, the enrollment dropped by 109, leaving 1,224 students attending these WI classes. My goal for this research project was to collect and review one course syllabus from each of the WI instructors, some of whom taught multiple sections of a course: 23 syllabi for the courses in the Language Arts Division; 19, in Arts and Humanities; 4, in Social Sciences; and 1, in Math and Sciences, for a total of 47 syllabi. I felt fortunate to have received 46 syllabi from the instructors; missing was a REL 205 syllabus. Thus, the sample mirrored the population for this study very well. However, to the sample of the 46 syllabi, I added one more syllabus from the Math and Sciences Division (BIO 172L) and three from the Business/Business Technology Division (BUSN 269, 277, and 279), even though these four classes were not offered during the target semester. I did so because there have always been wide discrepancies between the numbers of WI classes and instructors in these two divisions and the numbers in the other three divisions. By examining the syllabi, as well as interviewing instructors, from those two divisions, I hoped to gain more information about the fit between science or business courses and ENG 100. The following analysis and synthesis of the WI syllabi are therefore based on a sample of 50 syllabi.

21

WI Course Student Learning Outcomes It seems logical to assume that the courses that most closely mirror the ENG 100 SLOs (see pages 4-5) would benefit the most from having ENG 100, Composition I, as a prerequisite. If composition and rhetorical knowledge and skills are the content and focus of a WI class, then it can build on what is taught and hopefully learned in ENG 100. This almost perfect alignment is evident in the SLOs for ENG 200, Composition II: “1. Use a multi-step writing process that includes drafting, editing, and proofreading, while making use of written and oral feedback. 2. Write research-based compositions appropriate to various academic fields. 3. Locate, assess, and utilize academically appropriate source material. 4. Apply methods of citation appropriate to an academic field. 5. Demonstrate proficiency in organizational, rhetorical, and grammatical skills.” The only differences between the two composition courses seem to be that the writing in ENG 200 is geared toward specific academic fields and that the criteria are more complex and demanding. Other writing courses in the Language Arts Division (e.g., fiction, poetry, screenwriting, technical, and business) may direct students to read and write in different genres, structures, and formats. However, the one constant SLO in all these 200-level English courses is the application of a multi-step writing process, the foundation of ENG 100 and WI Hallmark 2. “Good writing is rewriting,” and the writing activities involved in implementing that mantra take a lot of time and effort, both for the instructors and students and both in and out of the classroom. A multi-step writing process, however, is not mentioned in the SLOs of the English courses that focus on the study of literature and are housed in the Arts and Humanities Division. Students are expected to “write critically and analytically about the literature and/or film of the course” and “write clearly and convincingly about literature and/or film” in ENG 253, World Literature I, and ENG 255, Type of Literature I, Short Story and Novel. (The SLOs are the same for ENG 256, Types of Literature I, Poetry and Drama, but without the mention of “film.”) So although writing is still important enough to be specifically stated in the SLOs of literature courses, the attention appears to shift from composition and rhetoric to literature as the course content. Of the two uses of writing described in the WI Hallmark 1, writing as a way “to promote the learning of course materials” appears to take precedent over writing as a way “to improve writing skills.” To embed writing processes (e.g., students writing several drafts and receiving feedback from their instructors on these drafts), as required for the WI designation, into the written products is probably not as easy or natural in literature courses, and probably even harder in courses in other divisions, than it is in composition courses. In non-ENG courses, there are only a few syllabi that use the verbs “write” or “compose” in their SLOs: THEA 280, Beginning Playwriting, another “natural” composition course; IS 250, Leadership Development; BUSN 269, Supervision; BUSN 277, International Business Protocol; BUSN 279, International Business Analysis; and BIOL 171L, Intro to Biology Lab. The explicit writing SLOs for the business and biology courses are somewhat surprising

22

because those two divisions traditionally offer the lowest numbers of WI classes. However, the two instructors who teach these WI classes are strong proponents of the efficacy of writing, as I later found out in my interviews with them, and therefore work to create relevant writing assignments. All the other syllabi use verbs like “identify,“ “describe,” “research, “analyze,” and “interpret” in their SLOs, which may, and probably does, imply that students will show evidence in some written products that they have learned the course skills and knowledge. However, there are other kinds of media and evidence (e.g., multiple-choice tests, oral presentations, and class discussions), some of which may be easier and more comfortable than writing for instructors to use. When writing is not specifically mentioned in a course’s SLOs so that all instructors are obligated to have written assignments as an integral part of that course, then it probably takes more effort on the part of the WI instructors to embed such assignments into their classes. WI Description in Syllabi Except for three syllabi, all of the other syllabi identify their sections as Writing Intensive and explain in various degrees what that designation means and requires of the students. Many syllabi simply copy the descriptive paragraph provided by the Leeward WI Board as a template (see page 7). The Board’s paragraph, however, does not specify the minimum number of words or pages (4,000 words or 16 pages) or the minimum percentage of the students’ final grades (WI writing assignments, excluding in-class exams and drafts, must make up at least 40% of each student’s course grade). Also left unanswered is how many pages do students really have to write if those sixteen pages count for only 40% of the course grade. Can students earn a D or even a C in a WI class and WI credit for graduation without fulfilling all or most of the WI class assignments? And why do journals, which are often written in class and are generally not revised, count as part of the sixteen pages and in-class exams do not? In reading the syllabi, I often found it difficult to find or compute those total figures stated in Hallmarks 3 and 4, but assumed that the instructors communicated and explained these quantitative requirements for each written assignment in ways other than though the syllabi. What students write (written products) and how they write (writing processes) are probably more important and relevant to ENG 100, but if how much students write is also important in determining if a class warrants the WI designation, then perhaps there should be clearer and more direct ways to communicate the quantitative WI requirements in the syllabi. Types of Writing Described in Syllabi The previous WI student surveys conducted during the Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 semesters by the Leeward Writing-Intensive Focus Board had already categorized the kinds of writing done in WI classes at Leeward CC (see pages 10-13). And so I took those types and matched them with those mentioned in forty-nine WI syllabi (one ENG 200 syllabus does not mention any of the assignments) to create the following frequency table and identify the types of writings WI instructors assigned in the Spring 2014 semester. Because the instructors used different words to describe their assignments (e.g., “response

23

paper” or “critique”) and because an assignment often fit into two categories (“essay” and “take-home exams,”) the table below provides only rough estimates of the kinds of writing assignments described in the syllabi. Table 6. Types of Writing Assigned in WI Classes Type of Writing Arts and

Humanities n=18

Business/ Business Technology n=3

Language Arts n=22

Math and Natural Sciences n=2

Social Sciences n=4

Total n=49

Discussion board, email posting, blog

5 6 11

Essays 13 6 2 21 Free writing 2 1 3 In-class writing, quizzes, and/or exams

5 3 7 2 2 19

Take-home exams

3 1 2 6

Journals or notes

4 2 4 2 2 14

Lab reports 2 2 Learning logs 1 1 1 3 Memos and letters

1 5 6

Reports 1 3 2 1 7 Research or term paper(s)

8 3 7 1 2 21

Reviews and/or response paper(s)

13 15 2 30

Speech outlines and manuscripts

4 4

Summaries 1 1 2 1 1 6 Written comments on classmates’ writing or presentation(s)

2 1 12 15

24

Type of Writing Arts and Humanities n=18

Business/ Business Technology n=3

Language Arts n=22

Math and Natural Sciences n=2

Social Sciences n=4

Total n=49

Other (play, poem, short story, memoir, testimony, interview)

5 5 10

Total 64 13 78 8 15 178 The most frequently mentioned type of writing was student responses or reactions to the class readings, videos, lectures, activities, etc. These were identified as “reports,” “papers,” or “journals” in the syllabi, and they were required throughout the semester, usually between five to ten of them, probably as a way to insure that students kept up with and understood the assigned readings and lectures. The directions ranged from “you must express your very own personal views, reactions, opinions, or perspective. Do not summarize the lectures for me: I want to know what you think of what you learn” (HIST 251), to “the first paragraph will summarize the article and the second one will be your analysis/response” (AMST 212). This type of assignment, students being able to summarize and then analyze what they read, is common in ENG 100; if students do not understand what they read, then it is impossible for them to write intelligently about the sources used in their essays. As with the response writing, the second most frequently mention type of writing was found mainly in the Language Arts and Arts and Humanities syllabi: essays and research papers, the core ENG 100 assignments. What was somewhat surprising was that about twice as many Arts and Humanities syllabi listed “essays” as a type than did the Language Arts syllabi. However, that perhaps may have been because the 200-level ENG instructors assume that they can focus on research papers and other more complex genres and build on the essay writing fundamentals their students have supposedly already learned in ENG 100. Although it is not within the scope of ENG 100 to assign creative writing and lab reports, all the other types of writing mentioned in the WI syllabi may be assigned in ENG 100, depending on whether the class is taught online or face-to-face and on the individual instructor’s preferences. What does seem unique in the Language Arts syllabi, whether or not they are designated as WI, is the use of peer reviews and written comments on classmates’ essays or speeches. Writing Processes Described in Syllabi In the syllabi, I found less information about writing processes, which is probably the most important WI Hallmark, than about the written products. When there were calendars attached to the syllabi, there were usually due dates for at least two drafts, implying that

25

students received feedback and comments from others between those drafts so that the writers could improve the content and form of their final drafts. For example, 5/7/14 was the deadline to submit SOC 218’s Final Paper draft to Brainfuse, and students were asked to refer to Assignments on Laulima for details. On 5/14/14, the Final Paper was due on Laulima. “You are required to submit a first draft of your paper to Brainfuse or the Writing Center and turn a copy of their feedback, your first draft, and your final paper to me. If you don’t do this a minimum of five (5) points will be automatically taken off of your paper.” From these directions, it was evident that the students went through a writing process and that they received feedback from a tutor via Brainfuse or the Writing Center. However, it was not clear that feedback was also received the instructor or that there was “interaction between teacher and students while students do assigned writing” as stated in WI Hallmark 2. The same ambiguity about the amount of interaction between instructor and students on major writing assignments was found in many other syllabi. According to the syllabus for REL 201, “The final research paper “will require the submission of a draft prior to the submission of the final paper….One visit to the Writing Center will be required prior to the final submission. Failure to do so will result in a 10% reduction of the overall final grade. Guidelines for writing the paper and a grading rubric will be posted on Laulima prior to the submission deadline.” If the syllabi contained more details, they would be extremely long, so it was understandable that WI instructors probably gave more specific directions through other means. However, in ENG 100 syllabi, instructor feedback, written and/or oral, is usually mentioned because it plays a central role in the writing process, which is a primary focus and activity in ENG 100. Another common ENG 100 practice is to have students write in class under timed conditions, which is in contrast to the out-of-class, multiple-revision writing process. One reason for such in-class writing is to give students practice in thinking and composing quickly, a useful skill in the “real” world; another reason is to check on the possibility of plagiarism (“if it looks as if two people are writing the in-class and out-of-class writing, then maybe two people are”). This kind of proctored response writing appeared in some WI syllabi, but not very often, probably because such writing takes up class time that WI teachers might need to cover course content materials and because in-class writing is difficult to replicate in online classes. Writing Intensive Instructor Interviews In order to obtain more detailed and accurate answers to questions about the types of writing assigned and the degree of instructor-students interactions in WI classes, I then interviewed eight WI instructors representing the divisions offering WI classes in the Spring 2014 semester: Arts and Humanities, Language Arts, Mathematics and Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences. (Even though no WI classes were offered by the Business/Business Technology Division that spring, I included an instructor and his syllabi in this study to insure a representative sample.) In addition, those WI instructors who had taught the largest numbers of students or the classes that enrolled the largest numbers of

26

students within their respective divisions were selected for these hour-long interviews: James Fujita (HIST 282, Introduction to American History II); Alyssa Haygood (BIO 171L, Introduction to Biology I Lab); Pat Hurley (ENG 209, Business Writing); Eiko Kosasa (AMST 212, Contemporary American Domestic Issues: World); Susan Lum (ENG 257N, Themes in Literature: Literature and Film); Donna Matsumoto (ENG 200, Composition II); Stanley May (BUSN 269, Supervision); and Christy Takamure (SP 251, Principles of Effective Public Speaking). (See Appendix D for interview questions.) Written Products Described by Interviewees Even though it might not have been very clear in their syllabi how much and what kinds of writing were required, when the eight instructors discussed their WI assignments and provided samples of the directions for specific assignments and what some students had written in following those directions, it became clear that these instructors expected and received from most of their students more than the sixteen pages required for the WI designation. For example, the SP 251 syllabus identified each speech’s percentage value in the final grade and the number of pages for each written component of each speech. The persuasive speech was worth a total of 155 points, accounted for 26% of the final grade, and required 4-6 pages for the preparation outline, 1-2 pages for the self-assessment, and 4 handwritten pages for the peer evaluations. In the subsequent eight-page handout given to the students for that speech, with the detailed directions, the instructor also included questions, notes, a checklist, and an outline model. If students followed the specific guidelines given by Christy Takamure, they would automatically produce the number of required pages. It appeared that each of the eight instructors had created his or her algorithm to fulfill the quantity that students should write in WI classes. There were only a few cases in which students did not hand in all of the WI assignments that they should have, and yet were able to acquire enough points to pass the WI class with a D, given the fact that the WI assignments account for only 40% of the course grade. Having to grant credit for the course and WI credit made some instructors feel uncomfortable. To address this issue, perhaps the Leeward CC’s Writing-Intensive Board should review its WI Hallmark 3 and consider separating the course credit from the WI credit, making it possible for students to earn course credit but not WI credit. More relevant in determining the value of ENG 100 as a WI prerequisite is probably figuring out how well students must write in WI classes, the quality of their writing, in order to succeed rather than how much they must write, the quantity of their writing. As mentioned previously, the most common types of WI writing assignments identified in Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 student surveys and in a review of the Spring 2014 WI syllabi were essays, research papers, and responses or reviews of readings. When grading a persuasive essay in a literature WI class (ENG 257N), the instructor used a rubric similar to the ones used in ENG 100, where persuasive or argumentative essay are also assigned. Even though Susan Lum did not require her students to incorporate outside, secondary sources in their ENG 257N essays do ENG 100 instructors, still the characteristics listed in her grading rubric were very similar to those found in ENG 100 rubrics: thesis, use of evidence, analysis, logic and argumentation, and mechanics. The overlap could probably be

27

attributable to the similar training and perspectives of composition and literature instructors. As shown in the grading rubric for a full laboratory report required in BIOL 171L, there were obvious surface differences between written products for science courses (e.g., abstract, quantitative data displayed in tables or figures, and description of experiments, materials and methods) and those for composition and liberal arts courses. However, the BIOL 171L instructor, Alyssa Haygood, reported that while her students had little trouble describing what they did in conducting the lab experiments, they often had problems applying and relating their experiments to the scientific studies they were reading. This biology instructor seemed to be looking for the same kind of deeper critical thinking skills that all of the other interviewees declared were very important; the higher order cognitive skills described in Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy (i.e., application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation) appeared to be the common goal in WI classes and in ENG 100 across all the course content. (Transfer theorists use the terms “high- road transfer” and “low-road transfer” to describe the distinction between metacognitive awareness of key concepts that extend across disciplines and courses and well-practiced and memorized routines that apply only to specific and similar learning environments.) Even when instructors encouraged their students to be creative in their speculations, as when history instructor James Fujita asked his students to speculate what would have happened if President Kennedy had not been shot, their personal views still had to be based on historical facts and evidence and present a logical explanation for the conclusions drawn, one of the characteristics of a good lab report. While there was strong consensus among the eight WI instructors about the importance of teaching and learning critical thinking skills no matter what the students read or wrote, there was less agreement about the importance of correct sentence structure and grammar, generally classified as lower order or “low-road transfer” skills. (Because it is relatively easy and less controversial to assess and evaluate the correctness in sentence structure and citation formats, much of the ENG 100 and ENG 200 course assessment activities so far have focused on the mechanics.) In AMST 212, Eiko Kosasa gave her students questions to elicit critical thinking about the geopolitical articles they read, for example, “what conceptual tools/terms does the author use to organize her/his ideas in the text?” and “whose interests are served by the publication of this text?” This instructor explained that she only commented on grammatical problems when it became impossible to understand what her students were trying to communicate because of poor sentence structure. She also believed that too much emphasis on the mechanics might draw students’ attention away from the more important focus on critical analysis. A few years ago, Susan Lum would have automatically marked an essay for her literature classes down to a D if it had had ten grammatical errors of three or more different types. That essay would still not earn a B today in her class, but she thought it might rise to a low C if there was strong, well-structured evidence to support its claim. Those teaching business-oriented WI courses, Pat Hurley and Stan May, believed that grammatical errors in reports and letters would project a poor professional image for any company, and therefore they emphasized the importance of mechanics in their grading

28

systems. Stan May explained that he took off points for every grammatical error (e.g., sentence fragment, subject-verb agreement, and possessive case) so that it was possible for a paper to sink to a D because of those errors. Fortunately, all of the WI instructors agreed that the writing skills (forming grammatically correct sentences and organizing them into paragraphs) of most students entering their WI classes were adequate to good, especially when compared to the writing skills of students in their non-WI classes, which often have a prerequisite of ENG 22, developmental writing. Having taught ENG 100 for years, Pat Hurley believed that the vast majority of her students entering ENG 209, perhaps except for ESL, second language learners, possessed the basic writing skills and were as prepared as could be expected, given the reality that ENG 100 is only a one-semester course. If only for that significant difference between their WI and non-WI students’ writing abilities, all of the interviewees were very glad that ENG 100 was a WI prerequisite at Leeward CC, even though they recognized that there were probably other factors (e.g., maturity and motivation) accounting for that difference. Another kind of mechanics taught in ENG 100 is the MLA (Modern Language Association) style to format in-text citations and works cited entries. Some WI instructors preferred that their students use the APA (American Psychological Association), CHI (Chicago), or CSE (Council of Science Editors) style, depending on the style used in their respective scholarly publications. Composition and literature journals use MLA, the social sciences, nursing, and business use APA, history and humanities use Chicago/Turabian, and the physical and life sciences and mathematics use CSE. I have always felt somewhat guilty about having to teach my students how to use the MLA rather than the APA style because many of their majors are in fields using the latter style. However, in discussing this matter with these WI instructors, I found that they would gladly accept the MLA style, or any style for that matter, if their students clearly and consistently stated where they obtained the information found in their writing assignments. For if students did not cite the sources for the quotations, paraphrases, and summaries that they took from their sources, then students were committing plagiarism. Even though Pat Hurley believed that she generally encountered only one student per semester who cut and pasted information directly from Web sites without acknowledging the sources, she said that she was still shocked to see such blatant plagiarism in the business memos she received; it seemed to her that many students didn’t feel they were doing something wrong, even when they were caught. To prevent students from stealing other people’s words and ideas and dumping them into their essays and lab reports, the WI instructors tried to create assignments that were unique and not found on the Internet, give their students sources well known to the instructors, or google suspected phrases. Susan Lum hoped to limit the possibility of plagiarism by asking her students to analyze just the primary sources, the assigned literary texts, and not look for secondary sources that analyzed the texts. All of the instructors required a bibliography, and sometimes they looked up the Web sites that their students listed; however, all but one instructor thought it impractical to have students submit hard copies of their sources with their papers, a practice that some ENG 100 instructors employ

29

to discourage plagiarism. Also judged impractical, especially for online classes, and time-consuming for face-to-face classes, was having students write essays in class for midterm and final exams to see how different students’ in-class and out-of-class writing were. Susan Lum remarked that this test for plagiarism was not foolproof, and that one of her students wrote better in class than out of class. Even though ENG 100 instructors spend time teaching the mechanics, it is probably unrealistic to expect students to be able to write grammatically correct sentences and paraphrases, which are much harder to write than summaries and quotations, after one semester of ENG 100. If these skills are not continually practiced, they are often forgotten. Perhaps what ENG 100 instructors should do, however, is to impress upon their students the reasons why these mechanics are important in establishing a writer’s credibility and to put purpose and audience before format and structure. Writing Processes Described by Interviewees It seems that there is never enough time in a class period or during the semester for instructors to teach and for students to master the skills, knowledge, and behaviors identified in the course SLOs. For WI instructors, who are held responsible for teaching a certain amount of facts, concepts, and perspectives about their respective disciplines, to take the time to lead students through a multi-step writing process, usually mean cutting out some course content. Eiko Kosasa, who had to delete a few countries from her examples of American imperialism because of the class time used for WI activities, remarked that WI instructors have to “just get over it” and accept the reality that because of the WI designation they won’t be able to cover as much course content; what instructors are getting in return is the opportunity to go into the course content in more depth. Although the WI Hallmarks stress that students should revise their writing assignments based on interactions with and feedback from their instructors, and all the interviewed WI instructors believed that students would learn the content much better if and when they wrote about it, still few WI instructors can devote the time it takes to do a thorough job to these processes as can ENG 100 instructors. Only ENG 200 instructors, like their ENG 100 counterparts, have that time because one, the writing process is a course SLO and therefore must be taught and learned. Both ENG 200 and WI instructors may require an annotated bibliography or literature review, but only ENG 200 instructors can spend several weeks showing students how to write one and having students write several drafts because such documents are the content of composition courses. Two, ENG 200 instructors—and to a lesser degree those who teach creative and business writing courses--have more freedom to choose what their students read, write, research, and think about. This kind of freedom is not afforded to those WI American history instructors who have to discuss important events from the arrival of the Europeans until the Civil War in order to prepare their students for the subsequent course and the period between Reconstruction and the present time. However, the downside is that composition instructors are constantly reading, reviewing, commenting on, and evaluating draft after draft from their students throughout the semester because the writing process is a continuous one.

30

A few semesters ago, Donna Matsumoto radically revised her ENG 200 online curriculum and required her students to write about issues pertaining to success in and graduation from college. For each of their three major formal writing assignments (commentary, literature review, and policy paper), the students submitted (1) a prewrite or brainstorming notes identifying the thesis/hypothesis, (2) a first complete draft, (3) a final draft, and (4) a debrief report or reflection paper. Some students submitted more than two drafts and some submitted none, but the majority of the students met the minimum requirements. Most of these writing produced by students were reviewed by and commented on by the instructor, a small group of five fellow students who often had the same major, and a tutor from the Writing Center or Brainfuse, a contracted computer service. The instructor gave suggestions on the content, as well as the mechanics, of the assignment in online and sometimes face-to-face exchanges that lasted over several weeks. If this ENG 200 instructor were teaching ENG 100, she would probably be taking her students through the same writing process and perhaps even using the same handbook and exercises. The content and time constraints make it difficult for other WI instructors to focus on the writing process and give as much feedback as composition instructors do. The interviewees reported that they used one or more of the following strategies to cope with the situation, interact with their students, and fulfill the WI Hallmark 2: 1. Select only one major writing assignment to take students through a writing process that requires two or more drafts on which the instructor gives extensive feedback and comments. The instructor may comment on other writing assignments but does not require multiple drafts from students. 2. Give the same short assignment or questions to answer (e.g., reading response, lab report, or learning log) on different content areas perhaps five or six times throughout the semester. Although students do not have to revise a specific writing assignment, the comments made by the instructor on one assignment are often applicable to the others. Therefore, students should be able to take the instructor’s feedback on one assignment to tailor and improve the following assignments to align with the instructor’s rubric. 3. Write short comments on the content and few, if any, on the mechanics (but direct students to the handouts, links, and/or tutors that could help with grammar and citation errors), and limit the time spent on giving written and/or oral feedback to a few minutes per student. In one 75-minute class period, one WI instructor could meet with twenty students individually and write comments on their drafts. Another instructor received the first drafts on Thursday evening, returned them with comments by Friday evening, and collected the final drafts on Sunday evening from students in three WI classes. 4. Do not give feedback or write comment on students’ drafts if they do not hand in the drafts or hand them in late. Some instructors interpreted WI Hallmark 2 as giving students an “opportunity” for interactions and feedback as a “courtesy.” One instructor estimated that about 60% of her students handed in rough drafts, which cut down the necessity of giving feedback by 40%. Perhaps a reason why a few students reported that they did not

31

receive feedback in the WI surveys (12 students or 7.47% in Fall 2012 semester and 7 or 2.97 in the Spring 2013 semester on page 11) was because they did not hand in their drafts? Whether students who did not hand in first drafts were allowed to hand in final drafts with or without a grade penalty, varied among the instructors interviewed. However, without instructor feedback on the initial drafts, the final drafts were usually, but not always, poorly conceived or written and earned lower grades. 5. Substitute feedback from fellow students and/or tutors in the Writing Center or on Brainfuse for feedback from the instructor. Feedback on the mechanics, where there were clear-cut “right” answers, worked as long as the peers knew what the right answers were. Instructors tried to monitor the feedback given by students in order to catch instances of “the blind leading the blind.” Because multiple, sustained feedback is much more common in ENG 100 classes than in WI classes, the emphasis on the writing process in ENG 100 is probably its most significant contribution as a WI prerequisite. If students can manage to successfully follow the steps in the writing process, especially over the several weeks it takes to complete the required research paper in ENG 100, they probably acquire not only better writing skills but also better study habits, e.g., motivation, self-control, time management, prioritization, and resilience. Practice doesn’t necessarily make perfect, but it should make better. At the very least, it usually dawns on ENG 100 students that what may have worked in high school—procrastination, late assignments, sloppy work, excuses, etc.—will not work in college. If students learn to curb poor work habits in ENG 100 by taking this “gatekeeper” course more than once, then they may be more prepared for the subsequent WI classes. The interviewees thought that the majority of their students had adequate study skills as well as basic writing skills when they entered their WI classes, and the higher student success rates in WI classes than in ENG 100 classes, as shown on Table 3 (page 9), seem to support that hypothesis. Recommendations and Conclusions All the evidence gathered so far points to ENG 100’s positive effects as a prerequisite for WI classes at Leeward Community College. Students who passed ENG 100 with a C or higher and who continued on to WI classes had an average success rate of 78%, although it is somewhat troubling that only 58% of those who were qualified to take WI classes enrolled in them. In addition to the quantitative data, the qualitative data gathered from the WI course syllabi and interviews of representative WI instructors revealed that the overall objectives and written products in ENG 100 and the WI classes had more similarities than differences, especially in the 200-level composition and literature courses, and at the macro level. Students therefore entered their first WI classes with enough of the basic skills that WI instructors could use as a foundation upon which to build their particular disciplines’ skills, knowledge, and habits of mind. Because WI instructors had their hands full with teaching their disciplines’ content, it was a boon if their students had already

32

practiced, and hopefully learned, the writing processes that resulted in the mastery of the basic skills in the prerequisite course. To increase this interconnectivity between ENG 100 and WI classes, I recommend the following: 1. That there be more communication and interactions between the ENG 100 and WI instructors. Before conducting this research, I had only a vague idea of how well a few of my former ENG 100 students did in their subsequent WI classes when they stopped by my office for a visit. Before receiving the interview questions, all of the WI instructors of course knew that ENG 100 is the WI prerequisite, but those not teaching in the Language Arts Division were unfamiliar with the ENG 100 SLOs and the major writing assignments. If ENG 100 and WI instructors read each other’s syllabi and assignments and discussed what their individual goals and expectations and problems and solutions are, then perhaps they could borrow and build upon each other’s materials, assignments, and strategies. This exchange and symbiosis would probably not only make the instructors’ jobs easier, but also give their students more closely linked and integrated courses. The biology instructor mentioned that she would like to see a special section of ENG 100 focused on scientific topics and writing. There are already some ENG 100 instructors who have their students read and write about the environment and sustainability, and an ENG 100 section geared toward CTE (Career and Technical Education) students is already scheduled for the Fall 2014 semester. So to incorporate more quantitative data and research and reorganize an essay as a lab report do not seem like a far stretch. If Leeward CC can successfully combine ENG 22 and ENG 100 in an Accelerated Learning Program, perhaps ENG 100 and a WI class could also be packaged. 2. That the college’s WI Board re-examine and make more specific and consistent Leeward CC’s WI policies, especially in regards to the weight given the WI writing assignments in students’ final course grades (WI Hallmark 3) and the interactions between the instructor and students (WI Hallmark 2). After the discrepancies have been resolved and a new template issued to WI instructors to include in their syllabi, the Board needs to provide more systematic oversight to insure that WI instructors continue to adhere to these policies after the WI designation has been granted. This is not to suggest that the Board micromanage what individual instructors do to carry out the WI policies, but that the instructors provide evidence that they are indeed implementing the WI policies. 3. That ENG 100 instructors continue to teach the myriad of specific skills and knowledge their students can use to succeed in their future WI classes, but recognize that the “learning how to learn” lessons will probably adhere better and stick longer to their students through their WI classes than the lessons on the mechanics. Making changes in students’ attitudes, perspectives, and habits of mind is much, much more difficult than showing students how to cite their sources or even how to paraphrase correctly. However, the choices between teaching “high-road” transfers, and “low-road” transfers should not be “either-or” ones. Instructors should try to do all of the above for all of their students, even if instructors know that they will probably fail 50% of the time.

33

When Mark Blaauw-Hara (2014) collected fifteen assignments from colleagues outside the writing discipline at North Central Michigan College and categorized the writing prompts that his first-year composition students would most likely face in other courses (humanities, social sciences, math, hard sciences, and occupational areas), he found that a high percentage of the prompts asked students to “incorporate secondary research (75%), summarize research (75%), use sections or subheadings (50%), critically evaluate sources (47%), and describe something, such as a computer operating system, pieces of art, a marketing plan, etc. (44%). Additionally, the average paper length was only three to four pages” (p. 358). What he did not find in these prompts was strong support for personal writing, a specific citation style, or an emphasis on grammar. His findings, though limited and tentative, spurred him to modify his writing assignments in order to facilitate the transfer of relevant skills. He changed his major essay assignments to include secondary sources and sections and subheadings and had his students read the prompts and compare and contrast what counts as “good writing” in English and other courses. ENG 100 should be a two-semester course, as it is at Hawaii Pacific University and Chaminade and used to be at the University of Hawaii. But it is not and probably never will be again. In fact, the trend is to decrease rather than increase the time to teach and learn the basic reading, writing, researching, and critical thinking skills in the traditional composition course. So the next question is, “How do we make ENG 100 more useful as a prerequisite for WI classes at Leeward Community College?

34

References

Blaauw-Hara, M. (2014). Transfer theory, threshold concepts, and first-year composition:

Connecting writing courses to the rest of the college. Teaching English in the Two- Year College, 41(4), 354-365.

A Committee of College and University Examiners. (1956). Taxonomy of educational

objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pullman, G. (1999). Stepping yet again into the same current. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm (pp. 16-29). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

35

Appendix A: ENG 100 Guidelines

Adopted on 4/28/00 by the Standing Committee on Written Communication

Criteria for courses that satisfy the written component of the University of Hawai‘i General Education

Written Communication/Communication Skills/English Communications Requirement1

The introductory writing course focuses on preparing students for writing they will do both as college students and as citizens who make contributions to the larger public discourse. While in the introductory writing course, students learn–through recursive writing processes, teacher and peer response, reading, and research–to develop complex ideas in a variety of genres and for differing audiences. They synthesize personal experience and knowledge with ideas they encounter as they read and discover as they write. Instruction proceeds according to the assumptions, teaching practices, and learning goals described below. The writing requirements vary for the campuses throughout the system. On all campuses, students must complete the written communication requirement during their first 24 credits or take appropriate prerequisite courses. Course titles1 and descriptions vary but the course content conforms to the guidelines below. All campuses also require writing-intensive (WI) courses to be completed in the subsequent year(s); instruction in these courses follows a single set of UH System guidelines. Written Communications/Communication Skills/English Communications Guidelines Assumptions Teachers and students work from the following assumptions, which are embodied differently in the practices of different teachers. 1. Writing is the work of individuals in communities, linking the past and present, the private and public.

At the college level, communities are represented by academic disciplines, which use different kinds of writing to advance and codify their knowledge, to carry out their work, and to serve their members.

2. Writing is intellectual work. Learning to write involves learning to develop complex ideas in various genres for various audiences.

3. Writers integrate complex ideas from academic and serious public discourse with their own experiences and knowledge.

4. Writing involves making decisions about audience, appropriate conventions, and language; students learn to make such decisions and to understand the implications of those decisions for their readers.

5. Writing is both personal and social and adapts itself to individual contexts such as self-reflection and to social contexts such as collaborative projects.

6. Writing is achieved through the processes of response and revision, in which peers and teacher give students reactions to their compositions; writers may use these responses for revision.

7. Publishing or sharing writing deepens and improves student interest in writing. Teaching Practices Throughout the course, teachers

1. Encourage students to think of themselves as writers who engage in reflection and self-assessment. 2. Emphasize inventing, drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading as recursive elements of writing

processes.

1 As of 4/28/00, approved courses include English 100 (all campuses), English as a Second Language 100 (UHH,

UHM prior to F00, KapCC, and LCC), English 101 (UHM), English Language Institute 100 (UHM F00-present).

36

3. Help students understand the rhetorical concerns of writing situations, audience expectations, and appropriate writing strategies.

4. Respond to student writing to facilitate revision at all stages of the writing process.

5. Share with their students their own experiences as writers both in and out of academic settings.

6. Provide opportunities for students to interact with one another and to work collaboratively.

7. Communicate with students regarding progress, opinions, and questions using various forms such as journal responses and e-mail.

8. Interact with students in conferences and in group and class discussions.

9. Provide instruction in basic research activities.

10. Help students find pleasure and satisfaction in the aesthetic, intellectual, and persuasive dimensions of writing, so they will understand writing’s worth for their personal and professional lives in college and beyond.

11. Follow the assessment practices described in the CCCC’s “Writing Assessment: A Position Statement” (http://www.ncte.org/positions/assessment.html).

Learning Goals As they complete the course, students

1. Write well-reasoned compositions that reveal the complexity of the topic they have chosen to explore

or argue. 2. Read for main points, perspective, and purpose; evaluate the quality of evidence, negotiate conflicting

positions, and analyze the effectiveness of a text’s approach, in order to integrate that knowledge into their writing.

3. Choose language, style, and organization appropriate to particular purposes and audiences. 4. Synthesize previous experience and knowledge with the ideas and information they encounter as

they read and discover as they write. 5. Use sources such as libraries and the Internet to enhance their understanding of the ideas they

explore or argue in their writing; analyze and evaluate their research for reliability, bias, and relevance.

6. Use readers’ responses as one source for revising writing. 7. Use standard disciplinary conventions to integrate and document sources. 8. Edit and proofread in the later stages of the writing process, especially when writing for public

audiences. Control such surface features as syntax, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Basic Requirements 1. Students are expected to write a minimum of 5,000 words of finished prose. This total is generally

divided into six to nine papers. As the guidelines suggest, the instructional emphasis is on the student’s writing; assigned reading serves the purpose of the assigned writing.

Page 2 of 2

37

4/4/2013

Appendix B: Types of ENG 100 Compositions

Assigned by Leeward CC English Instructors (Spring 2013 Semester)

Instruc-tor

Essay #1 Essay #2 Essay #3 Essay #4 Essay #5

1. Describe your personal life story. 5 pages (1250 words) minimum.

Describe the day you were born and paraphrase newspaper articles on events that occurred on that day. Include photocopies of ten news articles. 6 pages (1500 words) minimum.

Interview someone on a specific topic and transcribe your recording. 6 pages (1500 words) minimum.

Research a topic. Include at least six sources, three of which are non-electronic. 6 pages (1500 words) minimum.

2. Describe an experience that changed how you acted, thought, or felt. 2 pages (500 words.)

Compare and contrast how Rodriguez (“Public and Private Language”) and Tan’s (“Mother Tongue”) mastery of English affected his/her parents. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Take a stand on and persuade readers to agree with your position on a topic or issue. Include three Web sites and two articles from Academic Search Premier database. 5 pages (1250-1500 words).

Analyze a specific social, economic, political, civil, or environmental problem and propose one or more solutions. Include six sources from databases, two of them with viewpoints opposing your own. 5 pages (1250-1500 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue. The source is usually the common ENG 100 prompt/article for the on-line final exam. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

38

Instruc-tor


3. Describe a significant event or person in your life. 3-5 pages (750-1250 words).

Evaluate a subject and support your judgment with reasons and support. No sources required, but you may use two to four sources. 3-5 pages (750-1250 words).

Analyze a problem that affects a group or community to which you belong and propose a solution, specifying how your proposed solution would be put into effect and taking into account your readers’ objections and alternative solutions. Include four to eight sources. 5-9 pages (1250-2250 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue. The source is usually the common ENG 100 prompt/article for the in-class final exam. 2-3 pages (550-750 words).

4. Define and discuss the appropriate punishment for college-level plagiarists and how the consequences should be tiered. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Argue for or against the effectiveness of the Compass tests for placement into English courses. Include two sources. 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words).

Compare and contrast two sides of a local issue (from list of instructor- approved topics), describing your connection to this issue. Include four sources. 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words).

Research a local issue (from list of instructor- approved topics), describing your connection to this issue. Include a minimum of six sources. 8-10 pages (2000-2500 words).


39

Instruc-tor


5. Identify two or three “important” characteristics of a “good” ENG 100 student and compare and contrast the “ideal” student and yourself. 3 pages (750 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue (in-class midterm exam). Include one source chosen by the instructor. 2-3 pages (600-800 words).

Compare and contrast two Web sites selling the same product. Using the criteria given by the instructor (reasons, evidence, rhetorical devices), evaluate which site is more persuasive. Include two Web sites as sources. 3-5 pages (750-1250 words).

Compare and contrast two sides of a controversial issue and evaluate which side presents its case more effectively according to stated criteria (reasons, evidence, rhetorical devices). Include CQ Researcher, book, print periodical, and one interview transcript as sources. 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue. The source is usually the common ENG 100 prompt/article for the in-class final exam. 4 pages (1000 words).

6. Describe a significant, perhaps the most important, event in your life and explain how the event changed your life. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

Evaluate your favorite restaurant and describe three reasons why you like it. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Analyze “Breeding Evil: Defending Video Games”; state your opinion whether the author’s argument is valid or not. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Argue points without committing logical fallacies. Include multiple sources. 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words).


40

Instruc-tor


7. Describe why you are a potentially valuable employee for a specified job; include an example from your life experiences. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

Examine and interpret how an ad appeals to its audience; identify intention as well as effects (ethos, logos, and pathos). Include visual text as a source. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

Evaluate two articles about a problem that affects people in Hawaii; assess the sources’ validity and the quality of the arguments they make. Include two sources approved by the instructor. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Research the topic chosen in Essay #3, and argue for the problem’s best solution. Include four to five sources. 4-6 pages (1000-1500 words).


8. Describe a best or worst experience of your life. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Analyze the causes or effects of prejudice against an ethnic group. Include two or three sources, preferably from EBSCOhost database. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Research topic and gather information from sources that present a balanced account of the situation in society today. Include five or six sources, with three from EBSCOhost database. 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue (in-class final exam). Include one source chosen by the instructor. 2-4 pages (600-1000 words).

41

Instruc-tor


9. Describe a learning experience and its significance. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Evaluate a subject (e.g., book, movie, restaurant, or university) according to criteria or standards you understand. Include subject as a source. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Compare, contrast, and analyze a book and the movie based on that book. Include one book and one movie as sources approved by the instructor. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Take a stance on an issue (from list given by the instructor) and argue to convince readers that your stance is the best one. Include three to five sources from EBSCOhost, other databases, interview, etc. 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words).


10. Describe the experience of reading a special book from your childhood or adolescence. Include selected childhood book as a source. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

Summarize an article on team/group work and write a team operating contract, specifying the roles of each team member. Include three Web sites on collaboration selected by the instructor. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

With two or three team members, summarize “Hawaii Homelessness” published by the Honolulu Civil Beat; your summary should inform the public of the extent of the homelessness problem in Hawaii. Include selected article as a source. 2 pages (500 words).

Research and then argue for your chosen solution to the problem of homelessness in Hawaii. To convince the readers to adopt your solution, address the counterarguments. Include at least five sources, three of them from databases. 5-7 pages (1250-1750 words).


42

Instruc-tor


11. As part of your application for a job, describe an event in your life and what you learned about yourself or a decision that was made because of this event. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Describe the lessons you learned from writing the personal statement in Essay #1, including the writing skills you need to work on (in-class essay). 1 page (250 words) minimum.

Analyze and evaluate the team process used for the past two tasks, reflecting on what contributed to each team’s success, how you helped each team, and what suggestions for change you have. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Research a controversial issue with your team and then write an individual report to be used by a specific organization to discuss its policies. Include at least four sources (e.g., government reports, newspapers, or online journals). 4-6 pages (1000-1200 words).



Describe and analyze something that you saw that stayed in your mind and the lesson or ideas you gained from that experience. Compare and contrast how you felt at that time and how you feel now. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Analyze Roger Ebert’s review of The Dark Knight (comment on plot, actors, and special effects) and then write a review of one of the short films shown in class. Include film review as a source. 2-3 pages (500-750 words).

Take a stand on a controversial issue and argue for your position but present a counterargument as well. Include about five print and non-print sources. 5 pages (1250 words) minimum.


43

Instruc-tor


13. Describe and analyze your own experiences and your relationships to work. Include examples from Work Stories as a source. 4-5 pages (1000-1250 words).

Analyze how a social medium (e.g., song lyric, South Park episode, or a product ad) illustrates different facets of its social message. Include one media source approved by instructor. 3 pages (750 words).

Analyze and evaluate the rhetoric of an author’s argument or extract textual support (claims or evidence) from the article to support your personal stance on the issue (in-class midterm exam). Include one source chosen by the instructor. 2 pages (500 words) handwritten.

Argue for or against a controversial resolution, using logos, ethos, pathos, and counter argument. Include a minimum of three sources (e.g., books, articles from a database, or scholarly essay from a published anthology). 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words).

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue. The source is usually the common ENG 100 prompt/article for the in-class final exam.) 2-3 pages (500-750 words) handwritten.


Observe and then convey an impression of a person, place, or activity that might be of interest to others. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Argue your position on a controversial issue and try to convince readers to adopt your position; acknowledge possible opposing views and objections. Include one source (CQ Researcher report) given by the instructor. 3-4 pages (750-1000 words).

Expand on the Essay #4 position paper and research the issue further, supporting the arguments and/or refuting the counterarguments. Include four sources (the previous CQ Researcher report and three sources from EBSCOhost database). 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words).


44

Instruc-tor


15. Describe the quality you think best demonstrates Oahu/Waianae for inclusion in a brochure for visitors. 2-3 pages (625-750 words).

Classify the types of workers at fast food restaurants for inclusion in a college publication. 2-3 pages (625-730 words).

Explain the cause or effect of an important event that involved the Micronesian country you are researching. Include a minimum of three print sources. 3 pages (750 words) minimum.

Analyze the problem you have identified in the Micronesian country you are researching and propose a solution for that problem. Include a minimum of three print sources. 3 pages (750 words) minimum.

Analyze and evaluate an author’s argument or position on a controversial issue. (The source is usually the common ENG 100 prompt for the in-class final exam.) 2-3 pages (500-700 words).

Criteria for Grading Written Product (Final Draft of Essay): The essays described in the preceding table account for 40-60% of students’ final grade in ENG 100. Instructors generally consider the following factors in grading these essays: 1. States thesis/claim that adheres to the assignment’s guidelines and standards. 2. Supports thesis/claim with specific details or evidence relevant to the essay’s purpose. 3. Develops paragraphs that are logically organized and employ appropriate transitions. 4. Summarizes, quotes, and paraphrases sources accurately and without plagiarism. 5. Documents sources correctly using MLA format for in-text citations and works cited entries. 6. Constructs sentences with relatively few errors in grammar, syntax, punctuation, and mechanics. Although an in-class essay is graded according to the same criteria as an out-of-class essay, because of the relative short time given to write this essay, the standards regarding organization and mechanics are not as stringent as they are for out-of-class essays. Criteria for Grading Writing Process (Steps Taken in Producing Final Draft): If instructors assign an in-class essay, students generally have one or two class period to compose one draft, which is the final graded draft. Students are given the prompt (a persuasive/argumentative article) in advance to read, annotate, and refer to as they compose their essays. However, because this essay assignment is often used and graded as a midterm or final exam and

45

serves as evidence of students’ abilities to analyze and evaluate text on their own (also a check for plagiarism or undue assistance) and under time constraints, there is no class discussion about this particular article beforehand. (The assumption is that students have learned to analyze and evaluate text in other essays and shorter assignments.) When instructors assign out-of-class essays, students usually have three or four weeks to develop them, depending on the assignment’s complexity and number of required sources. Students write one or two preliminary drafts, which are reviewed and commented on by fellow students and/or Writing Consultants in small group discussions and by the instructors, before the third or final draft is submitted for grading. If any of these drafts are not completed by its given deadlines, or if all the indicators of the writing process are not submitted with the final draft (e.g., preliminary drafts, peer review sheets, and writing logs), points are deducted and the essay’s final grade is lowered. Some teachers refuse to accept late final drafts and that particular assignment will receive an F. However, it is not always clearly stated in the course syllabus how F’s for late essay submission affect the final course grade.

46

Appendix C: Fall 2013 WI Classes

CRN COURSEID TITLE INSTR_NAME DAYS TIMES DATES ROOM ENR

53275 AMST211 Contemp Amer Domestic Issues Kosasa, Eiko MWF 1000-1050 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA110 20

54309 ASAN204 Filipinos in the US Liongson, Raymund L. TR 1330-1445 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 DA204 17

54048 ASAN205 WI-Contemp Philippine Issues Liongson, Raymund L. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 DA204 18

53219 BIOL171L WI-Intro to Biology Lab I Neupane, Kabi W 1300-1600 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 MS108 19

54612 BIOL171L WI-Intro to Biology Lab I Haygood, Alyssa M. R 1300-1600 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 MS108 12

54010 COM210H WI-Honors Intrcult Comm Kaya, Douglas H. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA229 18

53028 COM210H WI-Honors Intrcult Comm Kaya, Douglas H. MW 1800-1915 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA229 22

53565 ENG200 WI-Composition II Sanger, Susan A. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 14

54124 ENG200 WI-Composition II Matsumoto, Donna T. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 17


54230 ENG200 WI-Composition II Wyatt, Danny O. MW 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 16



53104 ENG200 WI-Composition II Reisweber, Mia S. MWF 1100-1150 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 PS101B 19

53103 ENG200 WI-Composition II Fujioka-Imai, Kathryn MWF 0800-0850 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA228 21


53486 ENG200 WI-Composition II Waldman, Susan - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 18

54044 ENG200 WI-Composition II Reisweber, Mia S. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA109 20


54571 ENG200 WI-Composition II Reisweber, Mia S. MWF 1000-1050 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA108 16

54621 ENG200 WI-Composition II Miyake, Wendy L. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 PS101B 15

54510 ENG200 WI-Composition II Waldman, Susan - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 17

54506 ENG200 WI-Composition II Wells, Lindsay R. MW 1800-1915 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 8

53108 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Lee, Juliet S. MW 1330-1445 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA107 20

53109 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Lee, Juliet S. TR 1330-1445 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA101 19

53507 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Van Der Tuin, Melanie K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 14

53110 ENG207 Fiction Workshop Miyake, Wendy L. TR 1330-1445 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA104 11

54436 ENG208 WI-The Poetry Workshop Van Der Tuin, Melanie K. MWF 1000-1050 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA227 11

53113 ENG209 WI-Bus Writing Hurley, Pat K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 19


47





54440 ENG211 WI-Autobio Writing Bird, David F. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA227 19

53117 ENG225 WI-Technical Writing Wood, Susan M. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 20

53116 ENG225 WI-Technical Writing Wood, Susan M. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 20

54607 ENG250 WI-American Lit Oishi, Michael T. MWF 1100-1150 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 16

53357 ENG250 WI-American Lit Oishi, Michael T. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 16

53356 ENG250 WI-American Lit Oishi, Michael T. MWF 1200-1250 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 13

53911 ENG254 WI-World Literature II Lum, Susan K. MW 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 11

53354 ENG255 WI-Types of Literature I Oishi, Michael T. TR 1630-1745 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 11

54608 ENG256 WI-Types of Lit II Lum, Susan K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 17

54314 ENG256 WI-Types of Lit II Lum, Susan K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 19

53358 ENG257N WI-Literature & Film Lum, Susan K. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 14

53512 ENG257N WI-Literature & Film Lum, Susan K. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BE108 18

54330 HIST231 Modern European Civilization I Wong, Naiad N. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 21

53922 HIST242 Civ of Asia II Knuuti, Keith - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 15

54331 HIST244 Intro Jpnse Hist Knuuti, Keith - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 17

54332 HIST251 Islamic Civilization Khan, Abdul K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 18

54333 HIST281 Intro to American History I Fujita, James H. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 FA202 16

53513 HIST281 Intro to American History I Fujita, James H. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 FA202 19

53928 HWST261 Hawaiian Literature Archer, Luukia T. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 22

54211 HWST261 Hawaiian Literature Keliikuli, Genai U. MW 1800-1915 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 5

54019 HWST270 Hawaiian Mythology Parker, Natasha M. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 DA105 16

54213 HWST270 Hawaiian Mythology Keliikuli, Genai U. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 20

53550 IS250H Leadership Develop Chernisky, Joseph J. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 FA101 11

53142 LING102 Intro to Study of Language Bird, David F. TR 0900-1015 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA227 20

53143 LING102 Intro to Study of Language Hurley, Pat K. - 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 WWW 19

53907 REL202 Underst Indian Religion Walters, Christine L. MWF 1000-1050 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 BS208B 20

54210 REL205 Hawaiian Religion Keliikuli, Genai U. MW 1630-1745 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 12

54536 REL210 Hist of Christianity Walters, Christine L. MWF 1200-1250 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 FA101 22

54172 SOC250 Comm Forces in Hawaii Bopp, Patricia J. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA110 23

54452 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Takamure, Christy R. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA230 20

48


54508 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Gilbert, Christian K. TR 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LCCW 18

53547 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Hamada, Michele M. MWF 0800-0850 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA229 20

53159 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Takamure, Christy R. MW 1200-1315 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA230 20

53548 SP251 Principles of Effective Public LaMotte, May T. TR 1800-1915 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA230 19

54451 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Takamure, Christy R. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA230 20

53800 SP251 Principles of Effective Public Takamure, Christy R. MW 1330-1445 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 LA230 19

54173 WS151 Intro Women's Studies Adler, Corey T. TR 1030-1145 26-AUG-13-20-DEC-13 GT219 23

49

Appendix C:

Spring 2014 WI Classes


52404 AMST212 WI-Contemp Amer Global Issues Kosasa,Eiko MWF 1000-1050 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 GT219 18

52003 ASAN204 WI-Filipinos in the US Liongson,Raymund TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 DA204 22

52779 ASAN205 WI-Contemp Philippine Issues Liongson,Raymund MWF 1100-1150 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 DA204 20

52261 BIOL171L WI-Intro to Biology Lab I Haygood,Alyssa W 1300-1600 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 MS108 22

53224 BIOL171L WI-Intro to Biology Lab I Haygood,Alyssa M 1300-1600 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 MS108 20

52159 ENG200 WI-Composition II Carreira Ching,Donald MWF 0800-0850 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA228 20

52160 ENG200 WI-Composition II Reisweber,Mia MWF 0900-0950 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA228 18

52161 ENG200 WI-Composition II Sanger,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 18

52440 ENG200 WI-Composition II Lee,Meredith - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 9

52486 ENG200 WI-Composition II Matsumoto,Donna - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 20

52732 ENG200 WI-Composition II Reisweber,Mia MWF 1000-1050 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA228 20






52920 ENG200 WI-Composition II Wells,Lindsay MW 1800-1915 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA102 19


53074 ENG200 WI-Composition II Wyatt,Danny TR 1930-2045 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LCCW 15

53311 ENG200 WI-Composition II Wells,Lindsay TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA107 21

53312 ENG200 WI-Composition II Sanger,Susan TR 1030-1145 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA227 18

53325 ENG200 WI-Composition II Lee,Meredith - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 5

53407 ENG200 WI-Composition II Waldman,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 16

52162 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Van Der Tuin,Melanie MW 1300-1415 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA105 11

52578 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Van Der Tuin,Melanie - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 15

52635 ENG204 WI-Intro to Creative Writing Van Der Tuin,Melanie TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA103 19

53313 ENG207 WI-Fiction Workshop Miyake,Wendy - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 14

53313 ENG207 WI-Fiction Workshop Miyake,Wendy W 1900-2100 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA230 14

52163 ENG208 WI-The Poetry Workshop Van Der Tuin,Melanie MWF 1000-1050 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA227 12

50


52164 ENG209 WI-Bus Writing Hurley,Pat - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 19




52487 ENG209 WI-Bus Writing Herr,Stephen MWF 1000-1050 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 PS101B 19

52522 ENG209 WI-Bus Writing Herr,Stephen TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA102 16

53346 ENG209 WI-Bus Writing Van Der Tuin,Melanie MWF 1100-1150 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA227 21

52168 ENG211 WI-Autobio Writing Bird,David TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA227 17

52867 ENG212 WI-Screenwriting Workshop Miyake,Wendy TR 1330-1445 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA107 12

52169 ENG225 WI-Technical Writing Wood,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 20

52523 ENG225 WI-Technical Writing Wood,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 20

52780 ENG253 WI-World Literature I Oishi,Michael TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BE108 20

52781 ENG253 WI-World Literature I Oishi,Michael TR 1630-1745 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 FA101 7

52534 ENG255 WI-Types of Literature I Oishi,Michael MWF 0900-0950 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BE108 10



53055 ENG256 WI-Types of Lit II Lum,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 21

53056 ENG256 WI-Types of Lit II Lum,Susan - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 21

52006 ENG257N WI-Literature & Film Lum,Susan MW 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BE108 13

52007 ENG257N WI-Literature & Film Lum,Susan TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BE108 15

53057 ENG257N WI-Literature & Film Lum,Susan TR 1030-1145 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BE108 16

52827 HIST244 WI-Intro Jpnse Hist Knuuti,Keith - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 21

52791 HIST251 WI-Islamic Civilization Khan,Abdul - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 20

52348 HIST282 WI-Amer Hist II Fujita,James TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 FA202 15

52467 HIST282 WI-Amer Hist II Fujita,James TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 FA202 20

52824 HIST284 WI-H-Hist of Hawaii Ickes,Betty TR 1030-1145 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BLDGD102 21

52671 HWST261 WI-Hawaiian Literature Archer,Luukia - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 23

52743 HWST270 WI - Hawaiian Mythology Keliikuli,Genai MW 1630-1745 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LCCW 18

52902 HWST270 WI-Hawaiian Mythology Losch,Tracie TR 1330-1445 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BLDGD102 22

52900 HWST291 WI-Contemp Hawaiian Issues Archer,Luukia TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BLDGD102 20

52540 IS250H WI-Leadership Develop Chernisky,Joseph TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 FA101 16

52170 LING102 WI-Intro to Study of Language Hurley,Pat - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 18

52171 LING102 WI-Intro to Study of Language Bird,David TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA227 20

51


52227 REL204 WI-Understand Japanese Rel Sakashita,Jay TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BS208B 20

53332 REL205 WI-Hawaiian Religion Keliikuli,Genai MWF 1100-1150 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 ED101 20

53044 REL210 WI-Hist of Christianity Walters,Christine MWF 0900-0950 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BS208B 20

53391 REL210 WI-Hist of Christianity Walters,Christine TR 0900-1015 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 BS208B 19

52641 SOC218 WI-Intro Soc Problems Bopp,Patricia MW 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LCCW 20

53221 SOC218 WI - Intro Soc Problems Brekke,Eunice TR 1330-1445 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 FA201 20

52216 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public Mahi,Michele MWF 0800-0850 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA229 20

52217 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public Takamure,Christy MW 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA229 20

52524 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public Takamure,Christy TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA229 20

52730 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public Mahi,Michele TR 1330-1445 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA229 20

52877 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public LaMotte,May TR 1800-1915 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LA230 20

53319 SP251 WI-Prin of Effective Public Gilbert,Christian TR 1200-1315 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 LCCW 16

53269 THEA280 WI-Beginning Playwriting DeMoville,Kemuel - 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 WWW 22

53322 WS151 WI - Intro Women's Studies Adler,Corey TR 1030-1145 13-JAN-14-16-MAY-14 GT219 22

52

Appendix D: Interview Questions for WI Instructors

1. Which WI class (or classes) are you teaching this spring 2014 semester and

how many semesters or years have you taught it (or them)?

2. What makes your class (or classes) a WI class? If other sections of this course do not have the WI designation, what are the differences between your section and a non-WI section? How closely do you follow the WI Hallmarks (writing is used to increase students’ understanding of course material and improve writing skills; frequent interactions between students and the instructor occur during the writing process; writing contributes significantly to the students’ grades; a minimum of 16 pages of writing is assigned; and the class size is limited to 20 students)? What modifications, if any, have you made in implementing these hallmarks?

3. Describe the writing assignments you require to fulfill the WI Hallmarks,

including content, format, and length of each assignment. (The Leeward Community College Hallmarks of Writing-Intensive Courses lists analytic essays, critical reviews, journals, lab reports, research reports, reaction papers as examples for the required minimum of 4,000 words or 16 pages; excluded are in-class exams and drafts.)

4. What criteria or rubrics do you use to determine the quality of and a grade

for these writing assignments? Can you give me samples of the comments you have made on a student’s working draft and on his/her final draft? (Copies of student writing samples with your comments on them would be most helpful.)

5. To what extent does writing determine or influence your students’ final

grades? (According to the hallmarks, writing assignments must make up at least 40% of each student’s course grade. If not, the course syllabus must state that students must satisfactorily complete all writing assignments to pass the course with a D or better.)

6. What percentage of the students in your WI class exceeds your writing

criteria? Meets the criteria? Does not meet the criteria?

7. How familiar are you with the five Student Learning Outcomes for ENG 100 at Leeward CC? (1. Use a multi-step writing process, which includes drafting, using feedback from others, editing, and proofreading; 2. Write five compositions, including an in-class essay on an assigned topic, that are appropriate to a particular audience and purpose and that have a main point and supporting ideas developed with specific and logically organized details;

53

3. Incorporate source material appropriately into complex, well-reasoned compositions; 4. Apply the rules and conventions of grammar, word choice, punctuation, and spelling; and 5. Demonstrate effective use of study skills and college success strategies.)

8. Which of these five SLOs are most relevant to success in your WI class (or classes)? Why and how? Which are the least relevant? Why and how? Specifically, do your students do research (gather and collect their own sources) and document their sources with in-text citations and works cited entries in MLA or APA formats? Do they write timed, in-class essays?

9. What skills, knowledge, behaviors, etc. do you expect to see when students

enter your WI class because they have met the prerequisite and earned a C or higher grade for ENG 100?

10. What percentage of the students in your WI class exceeds your expectations?

Meets your expectations? Does not meet your expectations?

11. How useful is ENG 100 as a prerequisite for WI classes at Leeward CC?

12. What changes to ENG 100 might increase the likelihood of ENG 100 students successfully completing WI classes at Leeward CC? Are there specific skills, knowledge, and/or behaviors ENG 100 instructors should focus on more? Specifically, should more time be spent on writing grammatically correct sentences and not plagiarizing sources?

13. Do you have any other comments or questions about the relationships

between ENG 100 and WI classes?