ࡱ> 685g bjbjVV .&r<r<22222FFFFZF0nnnnnIIIegggggg$f2IIIII22nnI 2n2neIe:i,npNS Q0R. i. . 2`IIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIII : WAC Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, August 30, 2012, 10:30-12:30 GS 214A Present: Dan Murtaugh, Julia Mason, Ellen Ryan, Chris Ely, Jeff Galin, Julianne Curran Absent: Fred Bloetscher, Allen Smith, Joe Su Recertification Process Julianne Curran (JC) summarized that English department WAC syllabi will be recertified this year. Accounting for multiple sections of the same course and instructor, there will be approximately 50 syllabi to review. JC will review random 1101/2 syllabi. Syllabi will be reviewed in stages and the process will likely extend into the spring. The review process should only be about 5 minutes per syllabus. We will start with upper division and work our way down. Similarly, we will rotate reviewers. Over the course of the fall and spring, expect to review between 10-15 syllabi, returning comments to JC within two weeks. National Day on Writing JC described the general event, which will consist of daytime activities along the Breezeway and an evening reception co-hosted by WAC/UCEW and the English Department with a reading from an author. Activities and participation on Jupiter and Davie campuses are to be determined. In addition, a creative writing and essay contest will be held, and the student winners invited to read their pieces at the evening reception. The committee brainstormed essay contest prompts relating to the upcoming presidential election and higher education. JC will draft some sample prompts and solicit committee for input. Grant Proposal and Writing Enriched Curriculum (WEC) Jeff Galin (JG) reviewed two ideas that WAC is considering to help improve the quality of writing of transfer students and to help alleviate some of the pressure on departments to raise course caps on writing courses. It is unclear at this time whether these two things would be different parts of the same initiative, or two separate initiatives. To address the issue about many transfer students and upper-division students graduating ý with little to no writing, WAC is proposing a two-fold idea: Establish relationships with local state college feeder schools to discuss and better articulate curriculum and the kinds of writing students are expected to do in both contexts. Propose an alternative to or second tier of WAC, which would consist of courses that require writing, but not to the amount intensity mandated by Gordon Rule/WAC. Rather, departments would determine the kinds of writing skills they want their students to possess within their majors and infuse classes with such types of writing. A Writing Enriched Curriculum (WEC) would provide departments opportunities to review their curriculum and decide where and when writing should be included across their course offerings. It would also enable departments to get acknowledgement for the efforts they make to provide writing opportunities for students beyond the four state-mandated WAC classes. Professional development opportunities will also be available for faculty teaching WEC courses to help them use writing strategies with larger sized classes and to provide recommendations for writing tasks that will not overburden them with grading. These WEC courses would also be capped at a pedagogically responsible level to ensure that students receive useful responses and support for their writing. The WAC Committee will have to justify its rationale for such a program and provide evidence concerning class sizes across peer institutions to determine reasonable class sizes. [Update: JG has begun this research and has shared a Google Docs document that contains a good deal of useful data. He will continue to research this issue to be prepared for questions as the program continues to develop.] Julia Mason (JM) questioned if a less intensive writing curriculum was developed, whether it would cause a drop in WAC courses, but JG and Ellen Ryan (ER) noted that students would still need Gordon Rule courses, and that in some departments the WAC classes are good gate-keeping courses into the major. Ultimately, writing should be used and it should be acknowledged that it happens in other ways beyond thesis-driven pieces. The goal is to expand beyond WAC and support writing on a larger scale. The primary questions are how to go about determining interest and support and how to set up such a program. Discussion about and development of criteria for WEC courses, training and support for faculty, related resources, procedures to set up the program, and determination of course caps is needed. A rough outline of development would be to: draft a description and share with department chairs for feedback share with College Assemblies for feedback recommend to UUPC present to Faculty Senate present formal proposal to administration Chris Ely (CE) suggested getting a sense of the perception of the quality of student writing when they graduate. An informal faculty survey could be used to gauge this. Also, QEP and SACS data might be used. The committee brainstormed a short series of questions that might be included on an informal faculty survey. JC will create a document of the questions, share it with the committee, and invite feedback for revision. [Update: survey questions have been shared with committee via Google Docs] DE  , I L ] _ v y N O P X (-%,-ٹݭݭȭȭȭȩȩȥhWhw^5hw^hdLh2h2h25hn^Jhn^J5 hjhjhhjhj5 hj5hjhhx h25 hx5hxhJm5hxhx5:EM_ w k2]o & Fgd?^gddL & Fgd2^gd2gdn^Jgdj^gdj $a$gd{ 7v=F%`abjÿÿhjhj5 h2hn^Jh2 hWhW h5hh5hhW5 hW5hWh{ h{5hdLh? hh=+hw^ hhhhh=+ h=+5hWh5)ogdj^gd{ & Fgd?,1h/ =!"#$% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List D@D 2 List Paragraph ^m$PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  &o8@0(  B S  ?3]]NOPX(-  % , - 22=>EF\]noN`0!/3@^`o(.  ^ `hH.  L^ `LhH. x^x`hH. H^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(.  ^ `hH.  L^ `LhH. x^x`hH. H^H`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.!/N`)#        :         2dLVs:n^Jw^{=+Wm0xjWJm?@`@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@ CalibriA$BCambria Math"h '" Gw % %a20KQHP  $Px2!xx Julianne CurranJulianne Curran  Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hpJulianne CurranNormalJulianne Curran4Microsoft Office Word@Ik@[@@n뵊՜.+,0 hp|  %   Title  !"#$&'()*+,./012347Root Entry F0@k91TableB WordDocument.&SummaryInformation(%DocumentSummaryInformation8-CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q