CCC Proposal for a new Writing Requirement in the Core 9.16.20

Core Curriculum Committee Proposal for a New Core Writing Requirement The CCC requests Faculty Senate consideration first reading, Oct.. The proposed requirement involves components at t

Core Curriculum Committee Proposal for a New Core Writing Requirement

The CCC requests Faculty Senate consideration (first reading, Oct 2020, second reading and motion, Nov 2020 meeting) of a new writing requirement, Writing, Reading, and Inquiry,

effective date fall 2021 This requirement will help our students become more versatile,

purposeful, clear, and reflective writers The proposed requirement involves components at three levels—first semester, second semester, and a third level that students will complete at variable times in their later undergraduate career, depending on major and course of study This work is in direct response to concerns about student writing expressed by faculty across the institution This work also is based on assessment of existing Core requirements, state-wide efforts to improve writing curricula, and the CCC’s careful study of national models of writing requirements in general education

If this proposal moves forward, it will involve elimination of EYE and of the Core Electives

(previously the Thematic Cluster), to simplify the curriculum and to create space for a more sequenced writing requirement at three levels See figure I below

The learning outcomes for the proposed new writing requirement are included, as is a

diagram(figure 1) depicting the proposed changes, and an assessment rubric The proposal provides background and rationale for the proposed change, and an implementation plan that includes discussion of instructional resources and capacity, timelines, transfer, credit hour implications, implications for other programs, and a brief assessment plan

Background:

Beginning in Dec 2018, the CCC began considering possible changes to the college writing requirement in the Core The impetus for this work came from several sources:

1 Assessment: Since 2011, the CCC has monitored assessment data related to the Core in general, and for EYE and College Writing specifically In 2018, they returned to the EYE data in earnest, reviewing both the annual EYE Assessment data, more recent survey data, and focus group feedback from EYE instructors and students In response to the assessment data, the CCC began revising the EYE outcomes This work continued through spring 2019, while the CCC was simultaneously exploring a proposal for a revised writing requirement Reconsideration of the EYE and the College Writing outcomes occurred as side-by-side processes, in active

collaboration with colleagues in English The result of this work was a decision to move beyond modification of outcomes to a broader reenvisioning of what first year students need most, both in the first year, and beyond, to succeed in subsequent courses The decision was made to propose a new writing requirement that would retain the most important elements of EYE (e.g., collaboration with others and engagement with diverse viewpoints), while refocusing the

curriculum on writing, reading, and inquiry as a central and essential skills

2 Writing Program Administrators’ and English Writing Committee proposal: In Dec 2018, Professor Jessica Ouellette, USM’s Director of Writing Programs, presented a proposal to the CCC based on the work of the UMS Writing Program Administrators’ Program Innovation Grant, and the recommendations of the English Department Writing Committee This proposal called for USM to adopt a more comprehensive college writing requirement, to better align our

students’ writing experiences with national standards and practices, and with the requirements

at all other UMS campuses, all of which (except for USM) require at least two semesters of writing instruction

3 Writing Center: During this time frame, the Provost charged a committee to create a

proposal for a Writing Center at USM, another parallel activity reflecting institutional priorities with which this proposal aligns

4 Faculty Feedback: Problems with student writing have been a concern expressed repeatedly

to CCC members by faculty in their home colleges and departments, and by visitors to the committee’s meetings More formally, the CCC heard concerns from faculty about student writing at open meetings held in 2018 and 2019, at which attendees were invited to ask

questions about and make recommendations about the Core Student writing was on the top of the list of questions and concerns Second on the list were concerns about the complexities of the Core Electives Third on the list were concerns about the effectiveness of EYE

Proposed changes:

Writing, Reading and Inquiry Level I: ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL 100, HON 100, RSP 100 Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Level 2: ENG 102 and appropriate ESL, HON, RSP if desired

by those programs

Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Level 3: Advanced writing courses in the majors/minors and other programs (see list of prospective courses on pages 9-10) Students will satisfy level 3 by successfully completing an approved course in their major, or in another program, either inside or outside their college

The new writing requirement will involve sequenced courses at three levels, with shared

learning outcomes across all three levels, and additional, more advanced outcomes at the third level The first level will include and build upon our existing College Writing requirement and courses (ENG 100, ENG 101, HON 100, RSP 100, ESL 100) The first level of the requirement will

be met through these existing courses, with modified learning outcomes (see below) The second level will involve the creation of new courses addressing the common outcomes at a higher level (see assessment rubric) The English department has confirmed interest (and

capacity) in developing a second level course with an ENG prefix to satisfy the requirement HON, RSP and ESL will also be invited to develop a second level of Writing, Reading and Inquiry

if they determine it is in their students’ interest for them to do so The third level will primarily involve existing writing-related courses in the majors and other programs (see the list of

prospective courses on pages 8-9) and will likely also include revitalization of at least some of

our former “W” writing intensive courses The capacity analysis and implementation plan later

in this document provide more details on the issues of course offerings

As Figure 1 depicts, the requirement alters existing sequencing and prerequisites in the Core Specifically, students will have to complete level 1 prior to level 2; students will still be able to complete level 1 concurrently with CE, CI, SE, SCA, Diversity, and International Students will have to complete level 2 prior to EISRC The reason for this sequencing is to ensure student readiness for the next level in the writing sequence, and to address historical problems with students being unevenly prepared for EISRC, which has had at best highly variable

prerequisites Implications of this altered sequencing are discussed further in the section on implications for other programs

Requirement Description and Learning Outcomes

Writing, Reading, and Inquiry

In Writing, Reading, and Inquiry you will develop and adapt your existing skills to meet the demands of collegiate study and of new writing situations and diverse audiences You will become a rhetorically versatile and purposeful reader and writer, harnessing the power of language as a means to discover and cultivate ideas and to communicate clearly, productively, and ethically within academic, workplace, and civic communities

Level 1, 2, and 3 Outcomes

Students will:

1. Recognize and write for a variety of rhetorical situations and contexts, particularly academic ones, by attending to such factors as purpose, audience, genre, mode, and textual conventions

2. Read actively and critically for a variety of analytical and rhetorical purposes

3. Incorporate conventional usages of grammar, syntax, and style in relation to your rhetorical situation

4. Construct logical, thesis-driven arguments involving interpretation, analysis, critique, and synthesis

5. Re-see and extend your thinking and writing through processes such as reading, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, editing, designing, and redesigning

6. Discover and reconsider your ideas and positions through engagement with others and exposure to diverse perspectives and historical and cultural contexts

7. Adhere to shared standards for academic integrity and intellectual property through

informed source evaluation and correct documentation

8. Articulate the ongoing development of your own writing processes and strategies and their

relationship to your personal values, academic growth, and life goals

Level 3 outcomes:

Students will:

1. Articulate and use discipline-specific writing practices for a variety of academic and

professional rhetorical situations

2. Use discipline-specific research practices in the writing process

3. Critically evaluate the credibility of sources and evidence used to support your writing

Figure I: Diagram of proposed changes:

Timeline and process of the CCC’s work:

As noted above, the Core Curriculum Committee’s review and revision of the College Writing requirement was influenced by several calls to action including

● the publication of revised first-year composition outcomes by UMS Writing Program Administrators,

● a proposal to develop a six-credit writing requirement brought to the CCC by the USM English Department Writing Committee,

● Recommendations from the National Council of Writing Program Administrators, and

● faculty observations of significant gaps in students’ writing abilities

Additionally, assessment data and student and faculty feedback have indicated that the

outcomes of the Entry-Year Experience (EYE) requirement have not been achieved equally by all students The CCC began to re-examine the purpose of these Core requirements by identifying common goals represented in EYE and College Writing requirement outcomes The committee also looked at existing writing outcomes embedded in Core requirements In this process, the committee noted gaps in Core Curriculum outcomes in areas such as writing, skills of analysis, critical thinking, textual interpretation, and digital literacy

While deliberating the variety of possible modified structures through which students could achieve the identified critical learning, the committee began to merge EYE and College Writing outcomes They eliminated duplicative outcomes and added language to emphasize skills and knowledge related to writing conventions, composing processes, research practices, rhetorical awareness, and critical reading Committee members agreed on the importance of writing outcomes being scaffolded across students’ undergraduate careers to reinforce skills and to incorporate discipline-specific writing and research practices

Requirements at Other Institutions

The CCC studied examples of writing and first-year seminar requirement outcomes and delivery models at over 20 higher education institutions, including:

● Duke University: three-component requirement, Writing 101 requirement - one course focused on substantial engagement in the writing process, reading, evaluation of and response to peer arguments/points of view, two writing intensive courses

● Washington College: 4-component Writing Sequence - W1 First Year Seminar, W2 Process of Writing, W3 Writing in the Discipline, and W4 Capstone

● Whittier College: three-component writing requirement, First Year Writing Seminar - 3-credit course, taught by faculty across disciplines, writing intensive courses, and a

capstone paper in the major

● University of Colorado, Denver: Two-component writing requirement

● University of North Carolina, Wilmington: two component writing requirement, and a First-Year Seminar focused on developing information literacy, critical thinking and inquiry, thoughtful expression

● Agnes Scott College: First-Year Seminar ENG 110: The Craft of Writing - a writing course taught using literature as the context; course sections are diverse in topic areas

● Portland State University: Freshman Inquiry Course

● SUNY Albany: two semester requirement in Writing and Critical Inquiry

● Southern Connecticut State University: 4-level writing requirement; Analysis of Writing Goals - rubric of writing goals across the curriculum

● Eastern Kentucky University: Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric and Research, Writing, and Rhetoric, two semester writing requirement

The CCC’s review of these and other models led to the decision to adopt a 3 level/3 component model for USM This model is consistent with the developmental nature of our Core, which spans first year to senior year, and the model addresses the need for writing outcomes to be scaffolded across the students academic career

Implementation timeline: The CCC recommends implementation of the new requirement in fall

2021, effective for students with a fall 2021 admission term The new requirements will not apply to continuing students, and students who change their major after fall 2021 can retain their earlier Core requirement term The English department anticipates sufficient instructional capacity to meet this timeline This timeline will allow sufficient time to identify and prepare level three courses for students entering in fall 2021, both first time and transfer

The CCC recognizes that a range of significant factors related to the pandemic must shape consideration of this timeline If necessary in response to these conditions, the CCC

recommends careful consideration of a possible fall 2022 implementation

Credit hour implications: The proposed curriculum change reduces net Core Curriculum credit hour totals, but remains in compliance with accreditation requirements The credit hour

reduction (6) This reduction is achieved through the elimination of EYE (3 credits), and

elimination of the Core Electives (9 credits) which had no clear learning outcomes associated with them The credit hour implications of the proposed change for individual majors vary by program Programs for which the proposed change will pose challenges are discussed further below The maximum number of credits required to complete the USM Core will be 40,

assuming a student takes a single course for every requirement, with no overlaps Most

students take advantage of opportunities for overlaps, thus reducing the overall number of credits they take to complete all Core requirements A forty hour general education is

consistent with NECHE requirements for general education

Implications for other programs and student progress in the majors:

Some highly sequenced and credit-intensive majors will experience challenges if this proposal is approved, especially as they reconfigure the 4-year advising plans for their majors However, members of the CCC examined a range of major advising plans and found that with some

significant exceptions (e.g., MUE and EGN) a first and second semester writing sequence could

be accommodated by shifting when students complete another Core requirement (e.g SCA, etc.) that doesn’t have to be taken in the first year For EGN, this challenge may be mitigated by the possibility that an already required course in the major, ITP 210, could satisfy level 3 For MUE, this challenge might be similarly mitigated by an in-major offering

For other programs, the proposed change could pose sequencing related delays for their

majors, especially in instances (e.g., ARH 111 and 112, ITP 210) which currently use ENG 100 as

a hard prerequisite (a more strict structure than existing Core policies, which allow a

co-requisite structure between College Writing and other Core requirements) These programs may not wish to allow a concurrent enrollment approach to the first level course If that is the case, degree progress may be delayed for students in those programs if the new writing

requirement is implemented

The CCC is still in the process of gathering feedback from programs about the proposal At two open CCC meetings held in 2019-2020, and another on Sept 25, 2020, responses from faculty in attendance were generally positive The proposal has the support of the English Department, and appropriately reflects that program’s input, both through its representatives on the CCC, and through broader dialog between the program and the CCC throughout the past two years Indeed, English has already begun to implement the new writing outcomes in ENG 100 Russell Scholars supports the proposal

Other affected programs, such as Honors, have expressed general support for greater attention

to student writing, but have expressed concerns about the elimination of EYE, and have

indicated that they may wish to pursue a different approach for students in their program, in particular possibly retaining an anti-racism focused first-year seminar for HON students

Course naming conventions:

To capture the essence of the new requirements, the CCC adopted the requirement name of Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Courses in each of these areas will retain conventional subject prefix and number conventions already in use by the University That is, the requirement will not involve a new non-departmental prefix The CCC does recommend adoption of new course titles, Writing, Reading and Inquiry I for level 1 courses, and Writing, Reading and Inquiry 2 for level 2 courses

Specifically, level 1 will consist of our existing College Writing courses, ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL

100, HON 100 and RSP 100, with modified learning outcomes Level 2 will require the

development of new courses, ENG 102, and, as occurred with the creation of College Writing, ESOL, HON and RSP may wish to collaborate with English on offerings of their own level 2

courses

Level three courses will, like our existing Ethical Inquiry courses, retain their existing subject prefixes, numbers, and course titles, and will have a level three Core requirement designation attached to them for class search and degree progress report purposes

Seats and Sections:

Level 1: We currently offer an average of 40 sections and 800 seats of College Writing, with a cap of 20 (ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL 100, HON 100, RSP 100) every fall We offer an average of

10 sections and 200 seats every spring We will need to maintain these offerings

Level 2: To implement the second level of the requirement, we must effectively double our current offerings The estimates are based on most recent data on fall and spring College

Writing enrollments

Fall: retain 40 sections and 800 seats of College Writing; offer 10 sections and 200 seats of level

2 courses

Spring: retain 10 sections and 200 seats of College Writing, and offer 40 sections and 800 seats

of level 2 courses

Level 3: Because level 3 courses will exist across the curriculum, and because students will not complete those courses in large cohorts (as they have historically completed ENG 100, and as they will complete the new level 1 and level 2 requirements) planning the necessary sections and seats for level 3 courses is much more complex However, we can predict needs based on offering and enrollment patterns for our existing EISRC (Ethical Inquiry) requirement, which students also complete through courses from across the university, and at various times in their careers (but normally no earlier than formal second semester sophomore status as defined by credit hours) As is the case with Ethical Inquiry, students will satisfy the level 3 writing

requirement through approved course(s) in their major, or approved courses offered by other programs, either inside or outside their college

On average, we offer 30 EISRC sections each semester Each semester those courses run at approximately 65% capacity This suggests that for level three we could meet student

enrollment needs (and ensure degree progress) by offering roughly 20-25 such courses each semester Existing capacity at level three includes the following possible courses already on

offer (including previous “W” courses) This list is for illustrative purposes, and does not

represent approved courses confirmed by the offering department Courses adopted as level

3 courses must ultimately be approved by both the offering department, and the CCC Course approval will follow the usual department, college, and CCC curriculum approval processes

BIO 306 Developmental Bio and lab

BIO 312/282 Microbiology and Lab

BIO 353 Vertebrate Zoology

BIO 405/406 Animal Behavior and Lab

CMS 201 Introduction to Public Relations

CMS 202 Writing for Popular Media

CMS 215 Journalism Reporting and Writing

CMS 242 Communication and Social Media

CMS 274 Writing for the Media

CMS 302 Writing the Feature Story

CMS 305 Writing Opinion: Editorials and Columns

CMS 315 Broadcast Newswriting

EGN 210 Technical Writing

ENG 204 Professional Writing

ENG 205 Sentence Style

ENG 307 Topics in Professional Writing

ENG 309 Newswriting

ENG 310 Topics in Journalism

ENG 337 Studies in Rhetoric: Writing, Rhetoric, and Emerging Technologies

ENG 409 Internship in Professional Writing

ESP 401 Environmental Impact Assessment

ESP 421 Natural Resources Policy

HON 215 Thinking in Honors

HTY 200 Reference, Research, and Report Writing

ITP 210 Technical Writing

LIN 313 Syntax

LOS 210 Creative Critical Inquiry

LOS 299 Writing in the Major

NUR 321 Health Related Research

PSY 371 History and Systems of Psychology

SBS 370 Toward a Global Ethics

SOC 210 Critical Thinking about Social Issues

Instructional capacity: Capacity for the first level of the requirement is met through existing resources and offerings Based on the seats/section estimates for ENG 102 above, we can anticipate having to roughly double existing instructional capacity to offer sufficient sections of ENG 102 As noted below, this increased instructional demand will be met in part by shifting resources previously dedicated to EYE In addition, it is expected that full-time ENG faculty will also teach ENG 100 and ENG 102 in-load to partially offset the instructional costs associated with additional part-time contracts needed to staff ENG 102

Financial Resources: All curriculum proposals must ultimately be reviewed by the Provost, who must then determine whether and how to allocate the financial resources necessary to

implement the desired curriculum It currently costs USM approximately $60,000/AY to offer EYE We offer approximately 40 EYE, HON 101, and RSP 103 sections each fall and 10 sections each spring, staffed largely through part-time faculty, contracts for whom are paid out of the