1

APPLICATION FOR THE CCCC WRITING PROGRAM CERTIFICATE OF EXCELLENCE BOSTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES WRITING PROGRAM

CAS Writing Program

Boston University Yawkey Center for Student Services

100 Bay State Road 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02115

Contact:

Joseph Bizup, Assistant Dean and Director 617-358-1500, jbizup@bu.edu

ABSTRACT

The College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) Writing Program, a large independent program established in 2001, is committed to delivering a writing curriculum that fits the values, culture, and mission of Boston University and that is informed by current scholarship and best practices in writing pedagogy. Although it is located in the College of Arts & Sciences, the program serves students from all eight of BU’s degree-granting undergraduate schools and colleges. The program offers a two-course sequence of small, theme-based writing seminars (WR 100, WR 150) through which most BU undergraduates satisfy their respective writing requirements, as well as additional seminars (WR 097, WR 098, WR 100 ESL) for students who have acquired English as a second language. The program offers students one-on-one consultations about their writing through its writing center, and it supports a number of departments and programs through guidance and advice, teacher exchanges, and the pedagogical training and teaching experience it provides to graduate students. The program’s full-time, multidisciplinary faculty (three directors and forty-nine full-time lecturers) teaches almost two thirds of its course sections, with remaining sections being taught by graduate-student instructors, part-time lecturers, and departmental faculty. Because international students make up a significant proportion of BU’s undergraduate population (over 20 percent), the program takes ESL instruction especially seriously. The program has an associate director specifically for ESL, and ten of its full-time lecturers are experienced ESL specialists with formal credentials in the field. Each year, the program delivers around 400 sections with around 6,500 total enrollments, and it conducts over 3,500 writing center consultations. These figures place the program among the university’s largest instructional units. A stable and effective governance structure enables program faculty of all ranks to share in the formation of curriculum and policy, and the program’s attention to professional development works to ensure that all members of its intellectually diverse faculty are informed, engaged, and effective teachers. The program recognizes that to teach their seminars effectively, faculty must be conversant not only with their respective fields but also with best practices in writing pedagogy and ongoing scholarly debates within the field of writing studies. To this end, the program sponsors many professional-development opportunities, including “First Friday” professional-development meetings at the beginning of each semester, formal mentoring, peer-to-peer teaching observations, and regular faculty seminars exploring various topics in the scholarship and research on writing pedagogy. The program’s graduate-student instructors—PhD students from a range of CAS doctoral programs—also take a preparatory seminar the spring before their first year teaching in the program and a teaching practicum the following fall, and they receive ongoing mentoring and supervision throughout their time in the program. The program’s success is demonstrated by its annual curriculum assessment, its high course-evaluation ratings, the notice it has received in national and university publications, and the many teaching awards earned by its faculty. The program was instrumental in the founding of the Boston Rhetoric and Writing Network (BRAWN), a local professional organization for college-level writing teachers, and is now taking a leading role in a comprehensive reform of general education at BU.

2

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Materials Submitted:Abstract Application

1. Introduction 2. Program Demographics 3. Curriculum: Principles and Pedagogy 4. Curriculum: Learning Goals and Syllabi 5. In-House Professional Development and Professional Resources 6. Institutional and Community Context 7. Web Resources and Links to Additional Information 8. Evidence of Success 9. Evidence of Innovation, Institutionalization, and Sustainability10. Evidence of Effective Operation

Appendix: Abridged Course Syllabi and Faculty Seminar Syllabus 1.2. Criteria for Award Addressed:

Criterion Section

i. The program imaginatively addresses the needs and opportunities of its students, instructors, institution, and locale.

3.2-3.7, 6.1-6.3, 8.2, 9.1-9.2, 10

ii. The program offers exemplary ongoing professional development for faculty of all ranks, including adjunct/contingent faculty. 5.1-5.7

iii. The program treats contingent faculty respectfully, humanely, and professionally. 2.5-2.7, 5.2-5.4 iv. The program uses current best practices in the field. 3.3-3.6, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.2 v. The program administrator has academic credentials in writing. 2.1

vi. The program uses effective, ongoing assessment. 8.1 vii. The program uses effective placement procedures. 3.4

viii. Class size is appropriate. 2.10, 9.2 ix. The program models diversity and/or serves diverse communities. 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 6.1, 6.3 a. The program has conducted research that serves similar programs at other

institutions. 6.2 b. The program exhibits coherence in terms of disciplinary expectations. 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.7 c. The program exhibits some distinctive feature(s) in the student and/or faculty

experience. 2.6, 2.8, 5.2, 5.7, 9.1 d. The program effectively integrates theory and practice.

3.3-3.7, 4.1-4.3, 5.1-5.7, 8.2

e. The program uses practices and materials that lead to desirable learning outcomes. 4.1-4.3 f. The program provides valuable and valued community service. 6.2-6.3 g. The program has established strategic alliances with campus units and/or

initiatives. 2.9, 6.1

2. PROGRAM DEMOGRAPHICS

2.1. Directorial Team: The program is directed by a three-person team. The assistant dean and director, Joseph Bizup, is an associate professor tenured in English. He carries a 1/1 teaching load and is responsible for providing intellectual and administrative leadership to the program. He has published articles in College English, CCC, and Rhetoric Review, and he has delivered many papers at such conferences as the CCCC annual convention, the CWPA annual conference, and the RSA biennial conference. He is a co-editor of the thirteenth and fourteenth editions of The Norton Reader (2012, 2016), and he revised the eleventh and twelfth

3

editions of Joseph Williams’s Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace (2014, 2017). With William T. FitzGerald, he revised the fourth edition of The Craft of Research (2016). He was also a member of the CWPA committee that drafted the most recent WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition (2014). The associate director, Christopher Walsh, holds the faculty rank of non-tenure-track assistant professor and carries a 2/1 teaching load. He shares in all aspects of the program’s administration, with an emphasis on the program’s day-to-day operations. He is the author of Cowardice: A Brief History (Princeton UP 2014) and numerous articles and reviews in venues ranging from Raritan to The New York Times. The associate director for ESL, Maria Zlateva, holds the faculty rank of non-tenure-track assistant professor and carries a 2/1 teaching load. She has primary responsibility for the intellectual and administrative leadership of the program’s ESL curriculum. She has published over two-dozen articles, papers, and book chapters on ESL scholarship and pedagogy. Her book The SLTE Casebook: Creating and Reflecting on the L2 Classroom is forthcoming from the University of Michigan Press in 2017. 2.2. Coordinators: The program has four coordinators drawn from its full-time faculty: three curriculum coordinators and one writing center coordinator. The curriculum coordinators assist the directors, mentor colleagues, conduct class observations, co-edit the program’s online journal of student writing (see section 3.5), and manage special projects in consultation with the directors. These positions are two-year rotating positions and carry one course release per year. The writing center coordinator is responsible for all aspects of the center’s administration, including selecting, training, and supervising the center’s consulting staff. The position is a continuing role (i.e., it does not have a fixed term) and carries two course releases. 2.3. Administrative Staff: The program has a three-person administrative staff: a program administrator who attends to the program’s operational aspects (e.g., budget, payroll, records), an academic administrator who maintains the program’s websites and attends to the program’s academic and student-life aspects (e.g., scheduling classes, coordinating the annual curriculum assessments), and a senior staff assistant who staffs the front desk, oversees scheduling for the writing center, and assists with projects as directed. 2.4. Full-Time Lecturers (FTLs): The core of the Writing Program’s faculty is an intellectually and disciplinarily diverse body of forty-nine full-time lecturers (FTLs) who teach almost two thirds of the program’s courses. All FTLs are hired through competitive national searches conducted in a manner consistent with the recently published CCCC Statement of Best Practices in Faculty Hiring: search committees of six to eight members to ensure diversity by discipline and rank, explicit job announcements, staggered requests for materials from candidates, timely notifications to candidates at each stage of the search process, Skype interviews with consistent questions to all candidates, and on-campus visits with agendas shared with candidates in advance. Over the past eight years, the program has conducted seven searches yielding twenty-four hires. FTLs teach a 3/3 course load and have explicitly defined responsibilities in the areas of teaching, citizenship, and professional development. The initial term of appointment is one year, followed potentially by subsequent renewable appointments of one to three years. All FTLs who hold the base rank of lecturer receive standard salaries, with benefits, determined by their degrees and years of service at BU. In AY 2015-2016, the base FTL salary (received by lecturers with fewer than five years of service at BU) was $50,200 for FTLs without the PhD or $51,200 for FTLs with the PhD. FTLs may be considered for promotion to senior lecturer after five years of service in rank; senior lecturers may be considered for promotion to senior lecturer-master level after five additional years of service in rank. Upon promotion to senior lecturer, FTLs receive five-year renewable term appointments. In contrast to the tenure track, this career ladder is not “up or out”: FTLs have the option of deferring or declining consideration for promotion, and FTLs who are denied promotion may be reconsidered for promotion after two years. Each promotion carries a sizable raise ($8,000 plus the regular annual raise upon promotion to senior lecturer; 8 percent of salary plus the regular annual raise upon promotion to senior lecturer-master level). Because of this career ladder, the program’s highest-paid FTLs now have salaries that are more than 50 percent greater than was the base FTL salary in AY 2008-2009. In April 2016, the university’s full-time lecturers voted to unionize, affiliating with the Service Employees

4

International Union. The program looks forward to working with the university and the union to continue improving its FTLs’ terms and conditions of employment. 2.5. Part-Time Lecturers (PTLs): The Writing Program relies on a body of twenty to forty part-time lecturers (PTLs) to round out its faculty and to accommodate fluctuations in enrollments. The percentage of courses taught by PTLs is just over 20 percent per year. The program values the contributions of its PTLs and regards them as full members of its faculty. PTLs have access to all of the program’s professional resources and are invited (but not required) to participate in program governance and the program’s professional-development activities. In hiring and reappointing PTLs, the program gives preference to PTLs already teaching in the program and to former graduate-student instructors. A number of the program’s PTLs have also competed successfully for full-time positions: eleven of the twenty-four FTLs hired by the program since the fall of 2008 had previously served as PTLs. Both the program and CAS recognize that an excessive dependence on part-time academic labor is in the best interests of neither students nor the institution. Therefore, CAS has allowed the program to consolidate a good number of part-time positions into multiple full-time positions. Since 2009, ten new FTL positions have been created in this way. In AY 2015-2016, PTLs received compensation of $6,000 per course. In February 2015, the university’s PTLs voted to unionize, affiliating with the Service Employees International Union. The university and the union have recently agreed to a contract that will improve compensation and terms of employment for PTLs. The program will continue to work with the university and the union to support this valued segment of its faculty. 2.6. Graduate-Student Instructors (TFs, GWFs): Two main classes of graduate-student instructor teach in the Writing Program: Teaching Fellows (TFs) and Graduate Writing Fellows (GWFs). All PhD students in English serve as TFs in the Writing Program in their third year of study. The program accepts these students as a contribution to their doctoral training. In AY 2015-2016, two such TFs taught in the program. Graduate Writing Fellows (GWFs) are advanced PhD students chosen primarily from CAS departments through a competitive selection process. The program can award forty-eight total semesters of GWF support each academic year, and it limits GWFs to four consecutive semesters of support (to ensure a reasonable distribution of fellowships among CAS departments and graduate-student cohorts). As a body, these GWFs are excellent teachers who contribute greatly to the intellectual and disciplinary diversity of the program’s faculty. In recent years, the program has awarded these fellowships to PhD students from American and New England Studies, Archeology, Classics, English, History, History of Art and Architecture, Musicology, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, Religious Studies, and Sociology. All of the program’s graduate-student instructors teach one WR section per semester and receive the standard graduate stipend ($10,750/semester plus benefits in AY 2015-2016). The Writing Program provides its graduate-student instructors with an intellectually stimulating program of professional development that is considered by many to be the best teaching preparation available to PhD students. The following note, which accompanied a recent GWF’s teaching portfolio, exemplifies the kind of experience the program strives to provide:

I want to extend my deepest and most sincere thanks to the whole generous Writing Program for all of the support and education you have so lavishly bestowed on graduate students at BU. Putting this portfolio together has again reminded me of the embarrassment of riches the Writing Program offers. I am so deeply grateful for all the pedagogical resources, both theoretical and practical, that I have gleaned from the amazing apprenticeship/mentorship/education that the Writing Program has provided, and I know I am an entirely transformed teacher because of it. It is truly difficult (if not impossible!) to overstate the significance of the opportunities for learning and growth you all provide. For me, the Writing Program has been, without a doubt, the greatest and most excellent feature of my graduate education at BU.

2.7. Program Governance: The program is committed to participatory governance and has put in place a well-defined structure of coordinator positions (see section 2.2) and committees that afford faculty of all ranks (FTLs, PTLs, and graduate-student instructors) many opportunities to contribute to decisions about curriculum, policy, hiring, and promotions. Four standing committees—the Curriculum Committee, the Faculty Issues Committee, the WR Editorial Board, and the Graduate Writing Fellows Selection Committee—

5

are open to all program faculty. The Curriculum Committee, co-chaired by two FTLs serving staggered two-year terms, advises the directors on curricular matters, participates in the program’s annual revision of its course guidelines, and collaborates with the directors and coordinators to update the rubrics and procedures for the program’s annual curriculum assessments. It also undertakes special projects, such as developing teaching resources for the WPnet (see section 5.6). The Faculty Issues Committee, also co-chaired by two FTLs serving staggered two-year terms, advises the directors on such issues as professional development, service obligations, and review and reappointment procedures. This committee has undertaken a number of important projects, such as drafting the program’s expectations for teaching, citizenship, and professional development for FTLs. The WR Editorial Board is co-chaired by the program’s curriculum coordinators and edits the program’s online journal of student writing, WR: Journal of the CAS Writing Program. The Graduate Writing Fellow Selection Committee reviews applications for graduate writing fellowships, interviews finalists, and recommends a slate of recipients to the program director. Two additional standing committees—the Lecturer Promotion Committee and the Merit Review Committee—are open to faculty holding the rank of senior lecturer or above. The program also convenes search committees for its FTL searches and ad hoc committees and working groups as needed for various initiatives (see sections 2.4 and 9.1). 2.8. Writing Center: The program’s writing center, which is located in the Writing Program office with a satellite location in Mugar Memorial Library, offers individual writing consultations to CAS students and students in CAS classes. It is coordinated by an FTL, has a paid staff of undergraduate and graduate-student consultants, and conducts around 3,500 sessions per year. About 95 percent of the center’s appointments are with students enrolled in WR courses, and over 75 percent are with international students. See section 3.6 for its pedagogy and section 5.7 for its approach to professional development. 2.9. Writing Board: The Writing Board, a body of professorial faculty drawn from various CAS departments, is CAS’s primary faculty committee on student writing. The Writing Board is advisory to the Writing Program and also serves as a liaison between the program and CAS departments.

2.10. Program Data for AY 2015-2016: Courses and Section Sizes

CourseNumber OfficialCourseTitle Students/Section

WR097 AcademicWritingforESLStudentsI 15

WR098 AcademicWritingforESLStudentsII 15

WR100ESL WritingSeminar 16

WR100 WritingSeminar 18

WR150 WritingandResearchSeminar 17

Sections Offered

Sem WR097 WR098 WR099 WR100General

WR100ESL

WR150 WR202*

WR598 Total

F15 23 23 0 125 16 31 0.5 1 219.5

S16 2 23 0 23 16 120 0.5 0 184.5

15-16 25 46 0 148 32 151 1 1 404

* WR 202 is a 2-credit course in children’s literature offered for the School of Education

6

Course Enrollments

Sem WR097 WR098 WR099 WR100General

WR100ESL

WR150 WR202 WR598 Total

F15 321 337 0 2205 198 461 18 12 3552

S16 19 330 0 393 249 1933 14 0 2938

15-16 340 667 0 2598 447 2394 32 12 6490

Program Staffing

Sem Directors AdminStaff

FTLMaster

FTLSenior

FTLLecturer

FTLTotal

PTL Grad Total

F15 3 3 3 19 27 49 36 25 116

S16 3 3 3 19 27 49 22 25 102

Sections Taught by Rank

Sem Total #FTL %FTL #PTL %PTL #Grad %Grad #Other %Other

F15 219.5 132.5 60% 58 26% 25 12% 4 2%

S16 184.5 123.5 67% 30 16% 25 14% 6 3%

15-16 404 256 63% 88 22% 50 12% 10 3%

Writing Center Staffing and Usage Sem #Consultants #SessionsAvailable #SessionsConducted Efficiency

F15 28 2272 2000 88%

S16 23 2195 1643 75%

15-16 4467 3643 82%

3. CURRICULUM: PRINCIPLES AND PEDAGOGY

3.1. The Past (2001-2008): In 1997, CAS Dean Dennis D. Berkey convened an ad hoc College Committee on Writing, which he charged with “formulating a comprehensive plan to expand and strengthen the writing requirement for undergraduates in the College.” Working with the understanding that it was to develop a new “flagship program for the College,” the committee produced a Proposal for a College Writing Program, which it presented to the College in the spring of 1999. In 2001, the CAS Writing Program was created as an independent unit with Associate Professor of English Michael B. Prince as its Assistant Dean and Director. The 1999 proposal outlined a lineup of courses that remains the basis of the program’s current curriculum:

● WR 095 and WR 096 Writing Tutorial (retired in 2009): zero-credit tutorials taken by some students enrolled in WR 097, WR 098, or WR 099

● WR 097 English Grammar and Composition (now Academic Writing for ESL Students I): a course for ESL students requiring additional preparation before taking WR 098

7

● WR 098 Introduction to College Reading and Writing in English (now Academic Writing for ESL Students II): a course for ESL students requiring additional preparation before taking WR 100

● WR 099 Introduction to College Reading and Writing (retired in 2009): a course for native English speakers deemed to need additional preparation before taking WR 100

● WR 100 Writing Seminar: the first course in two-semester sequence of theme-based writing seminars through which most BU students satisfy their writing requirement

● WR 150 Writing and Research Seminar: the second course in two-semester sequence of theme-based writing seminars through which most BU students satisfy their writing requirement

The proposal also laid out a set of “guiding principles” that defined the program’s curriculum and pedagogy:

● Good writing follows from good reading; better writing follows from reading the best writers. This principle acknowledges the interdependence of reading and writing. In the program’s first iteration (2001-2008), best was interpreted to mean literary, and so these principles authorized an emphasis on literary texts and modes of reading; in the program’s current iteration (2008-present), best is understood to mean rhetorically effective (see section 3.3).

● Good writing follows from sustained engagement with important questions. This principle justifies the program’s theme-based first-year writing seminars. The program initially offered seminars on such universal topics as “Freedom,” “Human Nature,” and “Encounters with Morality.” While the program has since diversified its offerings, it remains committed to its theme-based seminar model.

● Writing and speaking have something to teach each other. This principle signals the importance of oral communication in the program’s courses. It also implies the rhetorical orientation that, while latent in the program’s early years, became dominant after 2008.

● Progress in writing is cumulative, but not linear. This principle underpins the program’s two-course sequence of writing seminars, in which capacities cultivated in the first seminar are reinforced and developed in the second. In the program’s early years, it authorized an emphasis on grammar and usage; since 2008, it has been interpreted as a principle about the psychology of learning.

● Good writing requires rewriting. This principle signals a commitment to a process pedagogy. ● All candidates for the B.A. should have the same opportunities to excel in English-language writing.

This principle expresses BU’s commitment to its diverse undergraduate student population, which is now over 20 percent international. It is the basis of the program’s strong ESL curriculum.

3.2. The Present (2008-2017): Between 2001 and 2008, the Writing Program grew into a strong first-year program respected across BU. In the fall of 2008, Joseph Bizup succeeded Professor Prince as the program’s assistant dean and director, and CAS Dean Virginia Sapiro asked the program to review its mission and curriculum and then to develop a plan for increasing both its impact on undergraduate education at BU and its national prominence. The program reaffirmed its commitment to its basic structural and curricular models but also made important changes to its curriculum and pedagogy, professional development, and governance. 3.3. Current Pedagogical Principles: The current program is shaped by the productive interplay of two framing principles:

● Institutional Fit: The program’s curriculum and pedagogy must fit the values, culture, and mission of BU and CAS. The program should also strive to shape this context by modeling curricular and pedagogical excellence.

● Professional Currency: The program’s curriculum and pedagogy must be informed by current scholarship in writing studies and currently accepted best practices in writing pedagogy. The program should also strive to contribute to the national conversation on writing pedagogy in ways consistent with its teaching mission.

These principles might be termed “meta-principles,” as they do not imply specific theoretical or practical commitments but rather structure the program’s decisions about its curriculum and pedagogy. The principle of institutional fit exerts a mainly conservative influence. For example, at the outset of its 2008-2009 internal review, the program stipulated that whatever else might change, it would continue to offer

8

theme-based writing courses emphasizing traditional academic genres (e.g., the researched argument). The program adopted this stance not because it considered its approach the one best way to teach writing but because, at the time, this model enjoyed the unanimous support of both the Writing Program and CAS faculties. But this principle also encourages innovation, because it demands that the program both respond to, and work to shape, its institutional context. For example, the program is now beginning a review of its own curriculum and pedagogy in response to a new university-wide framework for general education. This framework was also influenced by contributions from the Writing Program (see section 3.7). The principle of professional currency, conversely, exerts a mainly progressive influence. The program understands that the scholarship informing writing pedagogy continues to develop, and it uses a number of mechanisms—including its annual curriculum assessments, ongoing professional development, a standing Curriculum Committee, and a structured opportunity for faculty to teach experimental courses (WRX)—to foster a virtuous cycle of informed curricular and pedagogical innovation. For example, although the program has not yet addressed multimodal composition in its formal course outcomes, it has been preparing its large faculty for this step through faculty seminars, curricular experiments through its WRX initiative, and a targeted assessment project funded by the provost (see sections 5.2, 9.1, and 8.1). This principle also demands that pedagogical and curricular innovations be informed by current scholarship and best practices. Faculty applying to teach WRX courses, for example, must situate their proposed innovations in relation to both the Writing Program’s current curriculum and the national professional conversation. In keeping with these two framing principles, the Writing Program has not abandoned its original “guiding principles” as it has evolved; rather, it has reinterpreted them from an explicitly rhetorical perspective. The program thus now understands good writing to mean not just writing of exceptional aesthetic merit but writing that is effective in its particular discursive context, whatever that might be. It now interprets the principles that progress in writing is cumulative, but not linear and that good writing requires rewriting as demanding a process pedagogy in which students receive multiple “low-stakes” and metacognitive assignments through which they can try out new techniques, try on unfamiliar ideas and perspectives, and reflect on their learning. And it now takes the imperative that its courses address important questions to mean not that its writing seminars should focus on a handful of universal topics but that they should involve students in stimulating explorations of a wide array of subjects and issues (see section 3.4.1). 3.4. Current Curriculum: In the years following its 2008-2009 curricular review, the program streamlined and updated its curriculum by retiring three courses (WR 095, WR 096, and WR 099), revising the remaining courses (WR 097, WR 098, WR 100, and WR 150), and introducing one new course (WR 100 ESL). The program directors, working in consultation with the curriculum coordinators and the Curriculum Committee, also make annual curricular revisions, updating the course guidelines and syllabi templates each summer in response to its annual curriculum assessment and faculty input. Students required to include proof of English proficiency in their applications for admission take a placement test administered by the program’s associate director for ESL and are placed into WR 097, WR 098, or WR 100 (possibly with recommendations that they take WR 100 ESL). All other students are placed into WR 100. 3.4.1. General Courses (WR 100, WR 150): For AY 2009-2010, the program updated the goals, course guidelines, and assignments for WR 100 and WR 150, making several changes intended to improve consistency of instruction across sections, to afford instructors greater freedom to customize their seminars, and to encourage the adoption of accepted best practices in writing pedagogy (e.g., explicit articulation of learning outcomes, peer review of drafts, minimal marking, informal and writing-to-learn assignments in addition to formal papers, reflective or metacognitive writing). The program eliminated its requirement that WR 100 begin with two weeks of formal grammar instruction (the program now advocates teaching usage and mechanics in the context of students’ own writing), introduced low-stakes writing exercises in addition to graded papers, and added two metacognitive assignments to both WR 100 and WR 150: an initial self-assessment in which students take stock of their abilities and attitudes as writers and set personal goals, and a

9

final portfolio in which students document and reflect on their growth over the course of the semester. These final portfolios are also used for program assessment (see section 8.1). Since 2008, the program has also greatly expanded the range of fields represented by its writing seminars. This change reflects the program’s current rhetorical orientation and also acknowledges the broad range of students the program serves: since the program’s seminars are taken by most BU students, most BU students ought to be able to find something of interest in the program’s lineup of seminars. The program now offers seminars that address subjects from the local (The North End, Boston’s Natural History) to the global (Travel Writing in a Global Context, Global Judaisms); from the canonical (Ancient Greek Poets on Poetry, Shakespeare and Performance) to the edgy (English is Broken Here, Marijuana in American History); and from the timeless (Friendship, Fairy Tales) to the timely (Theater Now, Politics and Persuasion in the 2016 Election). The program truly has something for everyone. 3.4.2. ESL Courses (WR 097, WR 098, WR 100 ESL): Over the past several years, the number of international students attending BU has increased dramatically. International students now make up over 20 percent of BU’s undergraduate student body and over 28 percent of CAS’s entering class (fall 2015). The Writing Program has responded to this demographic change by revising and expanding its ESL curriculum. In AY 2009-2010, the program’s ESL faculty developed new versions of WR 097 and WR 098 that would better prepare ESL students for the new WR 100/150 sequence. WR 097, renamed Academic Writing for ESL Students I, was revised to give increased attention to the acculturation issues that affect ESL students’ linguistic and rhetorical performance. WR 098, renamed Academic Writing for ESL Students II, became a theme-based course organized around the topic of globalization that more closely anticipates WR 100. In AY 2010-2011, the program introduced an ESL version of WR 100 that could serve as a “bridge” course for those ESL students deemed too advanced for WR 098 but likely to struggle in WR 100. WR 100 ESL has the same structure and assignments as WR 100, but it incorporates ESL pedagogy and is taught by the program’s ESL faculty. In AY 2008-2009, the program offered eighteen sections of WR 097 and WR 098; in AY 2015-2016, it offered seventy-one sections of these courses plus thirty-two sections of WR 100 ESL. 3.4.3. WR-Equivalent Courses and WR 202: Several other CAS units, including the English Department, the History Department, and the Core Curriculum, offer courses that are considered to be equivalent to WR 100 or WR 150 for the purpose of satisfying students’ writing requirements. The Writing Program values these courses because they provide additional options to students and because they create opportunities for the program to collaborate with other units. As a service to the School of Education, the program also offers a single two-credit course in children’s literature (WR 202) for students majoring in English education. 3.5. WR: Journal of the CAS Writing Program: Since AY 2008-2009, the program has published the best essays to emerge from its courses in its online journal, WR: Journal of the CAS Writing Program, which is publicly available through the program’s homepage. The journal is co-edited by the program’s two curriculum coordinators and has an editorial board of Writing Program faculty. Last year, the journal received 429 submissions, eleven of which were selected for publication. This journal is integral to the program’s curriculum and benefits the program in at least three ways: by publicizing the best writing to emerge from its courses, by providing model student papers for use in teaching, and by encouraging through the editorial process itself conversations among the program’s faculty about what they value in student writing. 3.6. Writing Center Pedagogy: As it revised its courses, the Writing Program also reimagined and expanded its writing center. The center’s writing consultants are well trained and well supervised by the writing center coordinator. They generally rely on traditional non-directive, minimalist strategies, but they will also use directive tutoring in special circumstances, such as when working with ESL students. As is typical, the center offers students the opportunity to have one-on-one consultations about their writing. But it also has some distinctive features. Students who are recommended by their instructors may choose to enroll in a voluntary program of intensive tutoring, which involves committing to six sessions over six consecutive weeks with the same consultant. The center has a satellite location in Mugar Memorial Library (Tutoring@Mugar), which

10

allows students to meet with writing consultants and reference librarians in the same visit. The center also collaborates with BU Student Government to offer consultations in the dorms during the final week of each semester. Finally, the center offers its consultants special training in working with ESL students (see section 5.7) and has on staff several designated ESL specialists (generally PTLs who also teach ESL courses). 3.7. The Future (2017-): The Writing Program is now a fully developed program, but it will continue to evolve and grow. In May 2016, the university adopted a new framework for undergraduate general education known as the “BU Hub.” This framework, which calls for a general-education curriculum that is not narrowly academic but that positions students “to thrive in their professional, personal, and civic lives” (language adapted from the Writing Program’s mission statement), represents a significant institutional reorientation, and it thus provides both an impetus and opportunity for the Writing Program to once again review and revise its own mission and curriculum. This review will commence in the fall of 2016. The program is also expanding beyond its current primary focus on first-year writing. It has received approval to hire a third associate director at a senior professorial rank who will expand and coordinate the program’s efforts to support writing in the disciplines (see section 6.1). A national search will commence this fall.

4. CURRICULUM: LEARNING GOALS AND SYLLABI 4.1. Learning Goals for General Courses (WR 100, WR 150): Although WR 100 and WR 150 seminars address a range of topics and themes, all sections share the same learning goals, which are enumerated in a uniform statement that appears in all WR 100 and WR 150 syllabi and on the program’s website. Addressed to the student, this statement reads:

Although they vary in topic, all sections of WR 100 and WR 150 have certain goals in common. In WR 100, you will develop your abilities to

● craft substantive, motivated, balanced academic arguments ● write clear, correct, coherent prose ● read with understanding and engagement ● plan, draft, and revise efficiently and effectively ● evaluate and improve your own reading and writing processes ● respond productively to the writing of others ● express yourself verbally and converse thoughtfully about complex ideas

In WR 150, you will continue developing all of these abilities while working intensively on prose style and learning to conduct college-level research.

In developing this statement, the program consulted with its major stakeholders, including students, Writing Program faculty, the Writing Board, the CAS administration, and other interested CAS faculty. The program also considered the WPA Outcomes Statement and outcomes statements from almost a dozen other writing programs. The program’s statement of its course goals is thus one product of its commitment to applying nationally accepted standards (“professional currency”) within the specific institutional context of BU (“institutional fit”). This statement will likely be revised in the coming year, when the program undertakes its second major curricular review (see section 3.7). 4.2. ESL Courses (WR 097, WR 098, WR 100 ESL): Like the course goals for WR 100 and WR 150, the goals for the program’s ESL courses are outlined on the program’s website and given in course syllabi. WR 097, intended for students who are still acquiring facility with English, focuses on building general academic literacy through intensive work on reading comprehension, vocabulary, English grammar and usage, and speaking. Its specific goals, stated in every WR 097 syllabus, are to help students do the following:

● use effective strategies for reading college-level texts and for acquiring new vocabulary in academic contexts

● begin to build up a logical analytical argument in a short essay ● express ideas using a controlled range of structures ● identify and practice various writing styles and formats ● fluently perform classroom language functions

11

● understand the culture of the American academic classroom ● acquire knowledge of advanced grammar and basic meta-language ● begin to perform meta-cognitive and self-reflective tasks

WR 098 focuses on guided reading and summary, patterns of academic argumentation, awareness of audience and purpose, lexical and syntactic usage, and speaking fluency in informal and classroom settings. Its goals, stated in every WR 098 syllabus, are to help students do the following:

● read academic texts on varied subjects with accurate comprehension and intellectual discernment ● recognize and use the conventions of expository and argumentative discourse ● develop the tools to critique academic texts, including the ability to identify and critique thematic and

rhetorical structures ● write grammatically correct prose, using appropriate diction ● plan, write, and revise academic papers with structural accuracy, clarity, coherence, and attention to

stylistic features of written English ● understand American academic conventions and demonstrate intercultural literacy ● develop ability to respond to the writing of others ● use effective strategies for self-editing

WR 100 ESL has the same learning goals as WR 100. 4.3. Course Guidelines and Syllabus Templates: The program provides its faculty with detailed syllabus templates and course guidelines for all courses. These documents are updated each summer and posted to the WPnet by July 1. The templates include standard text (e.g., course goals, academic conduct statement) that must appear in every syllabus, institutional deadlines, and recommended due dates for major papers. The course guidelines outline the program’s various courses and explain their design and pedagogy. These documents are not rigidly prescriptive: rather, they are intended to foster a family resemblance among sections of the same course while allowing faculty to tailor their sections to suit their respective themes, teaching styles, and students. See the appendix for abridged syllabi for WR 097, WR 098, WR 100, WR 150, and WR 598. Full versions of these and other syllabi are available through the program’s website.

5. IN-HOUSE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROFESSIONAL RESOURCES 5.1. Philosophy: The Writing Program embraces professional development as a core responsibility and devotes considerable time and resources to it. Since the program’s theme-based seminar approach to first-year writing demands that it maintain a large multidisciplinary faculty, the program recruits lecturers (FTLs, PTLs) and graduate-student instructors from across the disciplines. The program recognizes, however, that if the members of its diverse faculty are to teach writing effectively and professionally, they must be conversant not only with their respective fields but also with best practices in writing pedagogy and ongoing scholarly debates within the field of writing studies. To this end, the program provides its faculty with strong initial and ongoing professional development as well as an array of professional resources. 5.2. Professional Development for All Faculty: The program offers the following professional-development opportunities (some required and some voluntary) to all faculty.

● New Faculty Orientation (2001-present, required): In years with several new hires, the program gives a one-day August orientation. In years with fewer hires, it gives individual orientations.

● “First Friday” Meetings (2009-present, required): The program holds a mandatory faculty meeting on the first Friday of each semester. The program has used these meetings to offer “mini-conferences” on writing pedagogy, to hold program-wide discussions of curriculum and policy, and to host outside guest speakers. Recent speakers have included Gregory G. Colomb, John Brereton and Cinthia Gannett, Chris Anson, Mya Poe, and Paul Kei Matsuda.

● ESL Training and Supervision (2001-present, required of ESL faculty): Faculty teaching ESL courses receive special mentoring, training, and supervision from the associate director for ESL.

12

● Syllabus Review (2001-present, required): Each semester, the curriculum coordinators review the syllabi for all new seminars. Faculty are invited to discuss their syllabi with the coordinators and the program directors.

● Formal Observations (2001-present, required): A director, curriculum coordinator, or senior lecturer typically observes the teaching of all FTLs and PTLs up for renewal. All graduate-student instructors are observed by an FTL in their first year of teaching in the program.

● Peer-to-Peer Observations (2011-present, voluntary): The program encourages individual faculty to visit one another’s classes. It gives $15 to any pair of instructors who observe one another’s classes, so they can meet for coffee to discuss the observations. These observations are purely formative: they are not part of any evaluation or review process.

● Faculty Seminars (2010-present, voluntary): These seminars are one of the Writing Program’s truly distinctive features. Each semester, the program offers one to three seminars, facilitated by program faculty, that explore the theory, scholarship, and research on topics relevant to writing pedagogy. The seminars are not “how-to” workshops on practical teaching techniques (although colleagues do of course discuss their classroom work) but opportunities to engage with theory, scholarship, and research that can inform classroom practice. Seminars have addressed threshold concepts in information literacy and writing studies, multimodal composition, transfer, student engagement and motivation, metacognition, and ESL research, among other topics. Seminars meet for three or four ninety-minute sessions or as one-day “mini-conferences.” FTLs and PTLs who attend all sessions of a seminar receive $200 research stipends. Graduate students receive credit toward the program’s Certificate in Teaching Writing. See the appendix for a sample faculty seminar syllabus; see the link in section 7.2 for all faculty seminars with syllabi.

5.3. Professional Development Specifically for Full-Time Lecturers:

● Mentoring for New Faculty (2013-present, required): The program pairs new FTLs with experienced colleagues who can provide information, consultations, and advice.

● Beginning of Year Meetings (2011-present, required): At the beginning of each academic year, each FTL meets for a half-hour conversation with one of the program’s directors. These meetings are occasions for FTLs to reflect on their work, to develop individualized plans for citizenship and professional development, and to offer their thoughts and suggestions about the program.

● Support for Conference Attendance: The College of Arts & Sciences will fund FTLs to attend one conference (domestic or international) per year.

5.4. Professional Development for Part-Time Lecturers: Because PTLs are paid by the course, the program imposes no professional-development obligations on them beyond those required of all faculty. However, the program invites and encourages PTLs to participate in the program’s voluntary professional-development opportunities, including faculty seminars, peer-to-peer observations, and voluntary mentoring. Many PTLs take advantage of these opportunities, valuing the professional support and sense of community the program provides. In AY 2015-2016, almost 50 percent of the program’s PTLs participated in a faculty seminar. The program has also hosted events such as faculty lunches specifically for PTLs. 5.5. Professional Development for Graduate-Student Instructors: The Writing Program treats the work and teaching graduate-student instructors do in the program as contributions to their academic and professional training. It supports its graduate-student instructors with the following opportunities:

● Preparatory Courses (WR 698, WR 699): In the spring before they begin teaching in the program, incoming graduate-student instructors take a two-credit preparatory seminar, WR 698: Teaching College Writing I. The following fall, they take a two-credit practicum, WR 699: Teaching College Writing II, which guides them through their first semester teaching WR 100. Both courses are highly regarded by the program’s graduate-student instructors. Over the past three academic years, WR 698 has received an average overall course rating of 4.41 on a 1-5 scale, and WR 699 has received an average overall course rating of 4.7. See the link in section 7.2 for syllabi.

13

● Continuing Supervision: After their first semester of teaching, graduate-student instructors receive ongoing teaching supervision from their mentors or the program’s directors.

● Certificate in Teaching Writing: The program offers this certificate to acknowledge the expertise its graduate-student instructors acquire in the program and to encourage graduate-student instructors to participate in additional voluntary professional development. To earn the certificate, a graduate-student instructor must take WR 698 and WR 699, teach at least two WR courses, take at least one faculty seminar, and submit a teaching portfolio.

5.6. Resources for Faculty: In addition to its public website, the Writing Program offers several online professional resources to its faculty. The most important of these is the WPnet, an internal website for program faculty. This site contains administrative information and program policies, including explicit expectations for faculty and criteria for merit raises and promotion; detailed information about the program’s curriculum and pedagogy, including syllabus templates and course guidelines; teaching resources such as sample syllabi, assignments, and lesson plans; videoed teaching demonstrations; resources for working with ESL students; data and reports from the program’s curriculum assessments; the program’s annual reports of each year since the program’s inception; the program’s self-study from its 2013 external review; and issues of the program’s faculty newsletter. The WPnet may be accessed through the Writing Program’s public website (link at top right) using “wptemp” as the username and “WPnet-2016” as the password. The program also maintains two listservs, one for official program announcements and the other for faculty discussion and queries; a Blackboard site for materials that are impractical to distribute through the WPnet, such as readings for faculty seminars and materials restricted to specific groups (e.g., working documents for committees, materials related to merit review and promotions); and websites for specific initiatives such WRX and various course clusters. 5.7. Professional Development for Writing Center Consultants: General training of consultants involves hands-on practice in role playing, readings in writing center theory and praxis, observations, and reflective writing. All consultants participate in an annual daylong orientation led by the writing center coordinator assisted by experienced consultants and ESL specialists. The most distinctive and innovative feature of the center’s training is a required two-credit course for all new consultants, WR 598: Tutoring in ESL. This course was developed specifically to prepare consultants to respond to the needs of the international and ESL students who are the center’s main constituency (see appendix for syllabus).

6. INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMUNITY CONTEXT 6.1. Intra-Institutional Context and Impact: Although the Writing Program is a unit of CAS, it serves undergraduates from all eight of BU’s degree-granting undergraduate schools and colleges, giving it university-wide presence and impact. Program faculty teach in several other units, including Archeology, English, World Languages and Literatures, the Core Curriculum, and the Kilachand Honors College; hold coordinator positions in the Core Curriculum and the Kilachand Honors College; serve on several CAS and university-level committees; and hold elected positions on the university’s Faculty Council. The program is also playing a prominent role in the university’s reform of general education. Beginning in the fall of 2016, the program’s director will serve on the provost’s General Education Task Force and will chair the satellite committee that will define and implement the university’s new communication outcome (see section 3.7). 6.2. Inter-Institutional Context and Impact (BRAWN): In its first iteration (2001-2008), the newly established Writing Program focused primarily on its internal institutional mission. Beginning in 2008, the program also began to look outward, placing a new importance on connecting with the wider profession of writing studies and the professional community in Boston. One consequence of this reorientation is the program’s current emphasis on professional development (see section 5). Another is its engagement with other Boston-area writing programs, primarily through the Boston Rhetoric and Writing Network (BRAWN), a local professional organization for teachers of college-level writing that the program helped to found in 2011. The Writing Program’s most significant contribution to BRAWN has been through the organization’s Summer Institute, a free two-day conference consisting of seminars on various aspects of writing pedagogy for BRAWN’s constituency of Boston-area writing teachers. While the institute is open to teachers of all ranks, it

14

is targeted especially to adjunct and non-tenure-track faculty who may have few other professional-development opportunities. Although the institute is free, admission is by application: around sixty participants are chosen to attend each year. The Summer Institute is now a major annual event: it was hosted by BU (jointly by the Writing Program and the Rhetoric Division of the College of General Studies) in 2012 and 2013, by Northeastern University in 2014 and 2015, and by MIT in 2016 (with a commitment also for 2017). When the Summer Institute was at BU, the Writing Program’s director sat on the organizing committee and the Writing Program was largely responsible for securing its funding (CGS provided the conference space). Many program faculty have attended the institute, and program faculty have facilitated almost one fifth of its seminars (thirteen out of seventy-four seminars offered over the institute’s five years). 6.3. Community Context and Impact: BU regards itself as Boston’s university and is committed to having a positive impact on the city. In keeping with this orientation, the Writing Program has periodically engaged with the Boston public schools. From AY 2005-2006 through AY 2009-2010, the Writing Program enrolled select seniors from English High School in its writing classes. In AY 2009-2010, three lecturers from the program volunteered to start a writing center at the school. In AY 2010-2011, the program began working with Success Boston, an educational initiative run through the office of the mayor. In AY 2011-2012, the program participated in the Boston Public School’s Advanced Placement Vertical Teaming initiative, with several Writing Program lecturers attending a workshop series designed to encourage collaboration between local public-school teachers and college faculty. In the spring of 2012, several local high-school teachers and Writing Program faculty exchanged classroom visits, and in April 2012, the program hosted a colloquium to foster conversation between local high-school teachers and program faculty.

7. WEB RESOURCES AND LINKS TO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 7.1. Public Website: The Writing Program’s website provides information about its mission and curriculum; access to WR, the program’s online journal of student writing (including all back issues); information about its writing center and access to online scheduling; and profiles of the program’s faculty, staff, and tutors. 7.2. Links of Interest: CAS Writing Program homepage: http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/ Sample Syllabi http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/about/sample-syllabi/ Faculty Seminars http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/about/faculty-seminars/ Faculty Awards http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/about/faculty-awards/ Faculty Press http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/about/faculty-press/ WPnet: http://www.bu.edu/wpnet/faculty/

8. EVIDENCE OF SUCCESS 8.1. Curriculum Assessment: Formal, systematic assessment has been integral to the program since its inception. From AY 2001-2002 through AY 2008-2009, the program relied for both placement and curriculum assessment on the BU Writing Assessment (BUWA), a holistically scored, timed reading and writing test administered to incoming students during summer orientation (for placement) and to all students at the end of each WR course (for assessment). In AY 2009-2010, concurrent with its first major curricular renovation, the program retired the BUWA and shifted to portfolio assessment. Each year, the program collects a representative sample of 600-800 portfolios from WR 100 and WR 150. In odd-numbered academic years (e.g., AY 2014-2015), the program conducts a quantitative assessment: approximately twenty readers spend a week in June reading and rating portfolios according to a detailed rubric. In even-numbered academic years (e.g., AY 2015-2016), the program conducts a qualitative assessment: multiple focus groups consisting of four to six colleagues each meet during the academic year to read, discuss, and report on small sets of portfolios. These two modes of assessment complement each other: the qualitative assessment provides a representative “snapshot” of the writing that students do in the program’s courses, while the qualitative assessment allows for rich interpretive assessment and discussion. These assessments inform the program’s annual curricular revisions, and assessment data and reports are posted to the WPnet so that faculty can consider them when planning and revising their individual sections. The program has also conducted several targeted pilots and

15

assessment projects and has assembled (with IRB approval) an electronic archive of portfolios available for future assessments or research. In October 2015, the Writing Program’s assessment procedures were featured at an institution-wide assessment conference sponsored by the Office of the Provost. In the spring of 2016, the program won two competitive assessment mini-grants from the provost’s Office of Program Learning Outcomes Assessment, one to investigate multimodal composition practices across the program’s curriculum and another to assess the program’s mediated-integration ESL courses (see section 9.1). The Writing Program was the only CAS unit to receive more than one of these grants. 8.2. Program Review: In the fall of 2013, the Writing Program underwent a formal review, conducted by a committee consisting of three nationally prominent writing scholars (Diane Belcher, Georgia State University; Cheryl Glenn, Pennsylvania State University; Joseph Harris, University of Delaware) and two BU faculty members from outside the Writing Program. This committee rendered a “strongly positive” assessment of the program. It described the program’s leadership as “doing an excellent job” and affirmed the success of the program’s curriculum. Regarding WR 100 and WR 150, the committee observed that “the design of these courses reflects current best practices in writing pedagogy through their emphasis on academic writing, process, revision, research, and argument.” The committee likewise described the program’s ESL courses as all “quite successful.” The committee’s interviews with students reinforced these judgments: “the students we spoke with all praised the work they did as challenging and interesting.” The committee praised the program’s writing center, observing that its consultants are “clearly committed to their work and knowledgeable about tutoring pedagogy and philosophy,” and it took special note of WR 598, the two-credit course that prepares consultants to work with ESL students, describing it as “an essential part of the education and training of the writing center tutors.” The committee also found that faculty engagement and morale were high: “the faculty appear to be committed to their work, happy with their positions, and intellectually stimulated.” 8.3. Course Evaluations: In their course evaluations, students consistently give their WR courses high ratings. In AY 2015-2016, the program’s courses received an average overall course rating of 4.38, which compares favorably to the average overall course rating of 4.23 for all other CAS courses. 8.4. Publicity and Teaching Awards: The Writing Program has received notice in the national media (e.g., The Chronicle of Higher Education, NPR) and in BU’s institutional organ BU Today, and Writing Program faculty have received many teaching awards, including the Metcalf Award, which is among the university’s top teaching honors. For full lists of publications and awards, see the link in section 7.2.

9. EVIDENCE OF INNOVATION, INSTITUTIONALIZATION, AND SUSTAINABILITY

9.1. Innovation (WRX): As noted in section 3.2.1, the program strives to foster a virtuous cycle of informed innovation through its assessment, professional development, and governance. It has also sponsored ad hoc working groups to explore particular innovations, including a portfolio pilot group (2009), an information literacy group (Spring 2008-present), a creative writing group (2011-2012), a Little Red Schoolhouse group (2011-2012), and a theater now/arts now group (2010-present). The program’s most extensive effort of this sort has been its WRX initiative, launched in 2013, through which program faculty can propose, design, and teach experimental writing seminars. The initiative is, essentially, an incubator for exploring and developing innovations that can then be integrated into the program’s regular curriculum. WRX is run entirely by a committee of Writing Program lecturers and graduate-student instructors (no directors are involved). Each year, the committee identifies one or more areas of focus (e.g. collaborations, multimodality) and solicits proposals for alternative courses from the program’s faculty. These proposals must describe the experimental course, indicate how it departs from the program’s standard guidelines, explain how the innovation is in conversation with current scholarship, and include an assessment plan. Faculty who participate in WRX teach their courses at least twice (to allow adjustments in response to “lessons learned”), attend three WRX meetings per semester to discuss their courses with colleagues, and write final reports assessing their courses and reflecting on their experiences. To date, WRX has produced several new course clusters that have become regular offerings, including a WR 100/150 cluster in which students “translate” arguments across academic and public genres (Genre and Audience), a WR 100/150 cluster in which students write in both “creative” and

16

“academic” genres (Creative Composition), and an approach to integrating ESL and native English-speaking students through parallel sections of WR 100 and WR 100 ESL that meet together for portions of the semester (Mediated Integration). WRX has also yielded many alternatives to the program’s standard practices that have become options within the regular curriculum. See also section 5.7 for the writing center’s innovative approach to training consultants. 9.2. Institutionalization and Sustainability: The best evidence of the Writing Program’s institutionalization and sustainability is its longevity and its visibility within the institution. The program has evolved considerably since its inception in 2001, but its essential approach and structure—an independent writing program offering a two-semester sequence of writing seminars taught predominantly by FTLs—remains intact and stable. The program is well integrated into the structure of CAS and BU generally, and it maintains a strong and positive relationship with the English Department. CAS regards the Writing Program as a “flagship” program and is committed to providing it with the support it needs to maintain this status. Over the past eight years especially, the College has invested in the program significantly. These investments include the following:

● creating a promotion ladder for FTLs, which required a six-figure annual increase in program payroll ● providing stipends to FTLs and PTLs for participating in professional development and funding FTLs’

conference travel ● consolidating PTL positions into ten FTL positions (see section 2.5) ● reducing section caps in WR 100 from nineteen to eighteen (fall 2015) and in WR 150 from eighteen

to seventeen (fall 2012), changes that required a six-figure investment to support additional sections ● relocating the Writing Program to the university’s new Yawkey Center for Student Services, which

more than tripled the program’s floor space and allowed its sizable faculty and active writing center to be located in the same building for the first time

● authorizing the incremental hire of a third associate director for writing in the disciplines

10. EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVE OPERATION Just as the Writing Program is committed to sound pedagogical practices, so it is also committed to sound administrative practices. The program’s three-person administrative staff efficiently handles complex challenges such as scheduling approximately 400 sections per year, handling payroll and reimbursements for over one hundred faculty, coordinating thousands of writing center appointments, and collecting and organizing hundreds of portfolios for the annual curriculum assessment. The program’s administrative staff also has an impressive record of predicting section needs with remarkably accuracy: the program regularly fills its courses to over 95 percent capacity while rarely oversubscribing them. (The program has never been asked to oversubscribe a section for budgetary reasons. It will do so on occasion to accommodate students’ scheduling challenges or because an instructor wishes to admit a particular student.) With respect to the administration of its faculty, the program is committed to consistency, fairness, and transparency. The program has established and published clear expectations for its full-time faculty in the areas of teaching, institutional citizenship, and professional development, as well as clear criteria for promotion and merit review. The program is committed to the professional advancement of its faculty and has consciously sought to create opportunities for them to build “promotable” records. It also offers faculty strong support and mentoring as they navigate the promotion process. Since the spring of 2009, when CAS created its career ladder for FTLs, twenty-six of the program’s twenty-nine nominees for promotion to senior lecturer have been promoted, and four of the program’s seven nominees for promotion to senior lecturer-master level have been promoted. Faculty engagement and morale are high (see section 8.2), and CAS has repeatedly held up the Writing Program for emulation by other units. For example, it has shared its statements on faculty expectations and the promotion process as models of completeness, procedural transparency, and clarity of exposition.

17

Appendix: Abridged Course Syllabi Full versions include course goals, course policies, and descriptions of assignments. See link in section 7.

WR 097: ACADEMIC WRITING FOR ESL I (FALL 2015)

CAS 318, MWF 4-5 pm; Instructor: Michele Calandra, calandra@bu.edu Course Description: WR 097 is designed to prepare students for the challenges of WR 098 and WR 100. We study the conventions of academic writing along with review of grammar and prose mechanics. Our emphasis is on comprehension, summary, and critical analysis of a wide range of readings, and we focus on accuracy and fluency in writing and speaking. There are frequent papers and in-class writing in addition to student presentations and individual conferences. Course Goals: [Listed here in full syllabus. See section 4.2 in the certificate application.] Course Requirements: Assigned readings with writing such as journal entries, summaries, outlines, and vocabulary logs; in-class writing; two formal papers with drafts; several minor papers; presentations; three quizzes; mandatory instructor conferences and WC tutoring appointment; class attendance and participation. Required Texts:

• Cooley, Thomas. The Norton Sampler. 8th ed., 2013 (main text/anthology) [NS] • Ferris, Dana. Language Power: Tutorials for Writers. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2014.

(grammar/academic literacy reference) [LP] • Watson, Larry. Montana 1948. Perseus, 2007. (longer work) [M] • Advanced English-English dictionary (your choice)

[The full syllabus continues with additional policies and guidance: attendance and participation policies, information about the writing center, academic conduct notice, links to university resources, etc.]

Class Calendar Unit 1: Academic Writing & Sentence Structure Week 1: Tutorial 4: Vocabulary in assigned readings (LP 61-72) W 09/02 Course and class introductions; diagnostic writing. Homework: Reading as a writer (NS 1-23) F 09/04 Developing academic language and style. Homework: Read and annotate McKean (NS 449-453). Week 2: Tutorial 14: Word forms (LP 213-230) W 09/09 Introduce Minor Paper 1: Basic Summary; discussion of McKean. Homework: Summary of McKean F 09/11 Review of McKean summaries. Homework: Minor Paper 1: Basic Summary Week 3: Conferences - goals for the semester; Tutorial 20: Agreement (LP 317-334) M 09/14 Types of discussion questions: effective questions & productive responses. Homework: Read and

annotate Beller (NS 149-154); BU’s Academic Conduct Code. W 09/16 Discuss Beller; academic integrity. Homework: Reading & Vocab Journal 1; outline of Beller F 09/18 Discussion of Beller and outline. Homework: Read, annotate, and outline Barry (NS 177-183) Unit 2: Paraphrasing & Summarizing Week 4: Oral presentations begin. Tutorial 18: Pronouns (LP 277-296) M 09/21 Discussion of Barry and outlines; summary vs. paraphrase. Homework: Read and annotate Mebane

(NS 167-176); paraphrasing and summarizing (NS 648-651) W 09/23 Presentation 1: Mebane. Homework: Minor Paper 2: Outline; avoiding plagiarism (NS 651-653) F 09/25 Introduce Major Paper 1: Basic Summary; discussion: summarize, paraphrase, or quote? Homework:

Reading & Vocabulary Journal 2; read and annotate Lustig et al. (NS 284-291) Week 5: Tutorial 24: Verb Phrases (LP 385-404) M 09/28 Presentation 2: Lustig et al.; drafting strategies and writing process. Homework: Review for Quiz 1;

planning and drafting (NS 24-33)

18

W 09/30 Quiz 1; Peer-review strategies. Homework: Draft of Major Paper 1 F 10/02 Revision & editing workshop for draft of Major Paper 1; sentence structure. Homework: Reading &

Vocab Journal 3; annotate Goodman (NS322-326); revising, editing, and proofreading (NS 38-41) Week 6: Conferences - Major Paper 1. Tutorial 9: Strategies for Self-Editing (LP 139-150) M 10/05 Presentation 3: Goodman; editing codes for revision; sentence structure. Homework: Supporting the

main point (NS 42-48) W 10/07 Paragraph structure and maintaining focus; different types of paragraphs. Homework: Read and

annotate Tannen (NS 397-405); Developing paragraphs (NS 48-54); Basic Summary paper F 10/09 Presentation 4: Tannen; summary vs. analysis. Homework: Read and annotate Lederer (NS 216-221) Unit 3: Analysis Week 7: Tutorial 19: Verb Tense Shifts (LP 297-316) M 10/12 No classes: Columbus Day T 10/13 Mid-term self-assessment; review summary vs. analysis. Homework: Read and annotate Penenberg

& Barry (NS 342-353) W 10/14 Presentation 5: Penenberg & Barry; Emphasizing key ideas (coordination and subordination).

Homework: Read and annotate Gates (NS 499-505) F 10/16 Appropriate language and writing clearly; lexical and stylistic analysis. Homework: Reading &

Vocab Journal 4; evaluating sources (NS 641-647); review for Quiz 2 Week 8 Tutorial 3: Phrases, Clauses, and Sentence Types (LP 41-58) M 10/19 Quiz 2; evaluating and incorporating sources. Homework: Read and annotate White (NS 114-122) W 10/21 Minor Paper 3: Analysis of rhetorical technique. Homework: Read and annotate Weiss (NS 333-341) F 10/23 Presentation 6: Weiss; Working with sources & MLA Style. Homework: Minor Paper 3; MLA

documentation (NS 653-671) Week 9 Tutorial 21: Sentence Boundaries (LP 335-352) M 10/26 Introduction to argumentation. Homework: Read and annotate White & Arp (NS 545-549) W 10/28 Presentation 7: White & Arp; evaluating arguments. Homework: Argument (NS 517-538) F 10/30 Structure of argument. Homework: Reading & Vocab Journal 5; read Swift (NS 612-622) Week 10 Tutorial 15: The Big Three Comma rules (LP 231-244) M 11/2 Discussion of Swift; introduce the novel Montana 1948. Homework: Prologue and Ch. 1 (M: 3-21) W 11/04 Discussing fiction; discussion of the novel. Homework: Ch. 1 (M: 21-43), Review for Quiz 3 F 11/06 Quiz 3; discuss novel; Major Paper 2: Argument-Based Analysis. Homework: Ch. 2 (M: 47-93) Week 11: Grammar Presentations begin. Tutorial 5: Coherence and cohesion (LP 73-88) M 11/9 Discussion of the novel. Homework: Ch. 3 (M: 97-145) W 11/11 Grammar Presentation 1; discussion of the novel; writing effective thesis statements. Homework:

Ch. 3 & Epilogue (M: 145-169); OWL: developing strong thesis statements F 11/13 Discussion of the novel; ideas for Major Paper 2; thesis statements and argument-based analyses.

Homework: Reading & Vocab Journal 6; thesis statement for Major Paper 2 Unit 4: Argument Week 12: Tutorial 11: Passive voice (LP 167-182) M 11/16 Paper 2 thesis statement review; writing an introduction. Homework: Introductory and concluding

paragraphs (NS 55-58); thesis revision W 11/18 Grammar Presentation 2; writing a conclusion. Homework: Draft of Major Paper 2 F 11/20 Peer review workshop of your first draft of Major Paper 2; rewriting and proofreading Week 13: Tutorial 6: Writing style (LP 89-104) M 11/23 Grammar Presentation 3; revision strategies. Homework: Work on revising Major Paper 2 Week 14: Conferences - Major Paper 2. Tutorial 7: Rhetorical grammar (LP 105-120) M 11/30 Grammar Presentation 4; revision. Homework: Bring current version of Major Paper 2 to class W 12/02 In-class editing workshop for Major Paper 2. Homework: Apply edits to Major Paper 2 F 12/04 Grammar Presentation 5; Preparing your Works Cited page. Homework: Continue revising Week 15: Course Conclusion M 12/07 Course evaluations; editing workshop. Homework: Final version of Major Paper 2 W 12/09 Last day of classes: Course conclusion. Due: Major Paper 2

19

WR 098 ACADEMIC WRITING FOR ESL STUDENTS II: THE GLOBAL UNIVERSITY (FALL 2015)

STH 441 MWF 9-10; Instructor: Christina Michaud; cmichaud@bu.edu; Office Hour: Tu 9-11 Course Description: WR 098 is designed to prepare students for the challenges of WR 100 and to lay the foundation for all other BU classes. The course emphasizes critical reading and analytical writing and offers a review of grammar and prose mechanics in context, as well as intensive practice in the patterns of academic argumentation. Students will encounter a variety of theme-based readings and multiple writing assignments of increasing complexity, each requiring proper citation of sources. Speaking skills will be refined through class discussions, oral presentations, and individual conferences. The course covers a variety of themes that encompass the life of a global university and its place in 21st century society. Course Goals: [Listed here in full syllabus. See section 4.2 in the certificate application.] Course Requirements: To succeed in this course, students must fulfill the following requirements:

• consistent attendance and active participation in class work • annotated readings, with summaries/outlines/journals assigned for homework • presentations on assigned readings • three formal papers with multiple drafts • final portfolio (with cover letter, two minor assignments, and final paper) • in-class writing, short papers, and exercises • three Unit quizzes (on vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension, argumentation) • two individual conferences (one with instructor and one with an ESL tutor)

Grading and Evaluation: Final course grades will be based on the major papers, portfolio, homework, in-class assignments and participation, oral presentations, and quizzes. Required Texts (available at BU Bookstore) Graff, G. & C. Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 3rd ed. W.W.

Norton, 2014. Print. (packaged with The Oxford American Dictionary) Abbreviated “TS/IS” in calendar.

Hacker, Diana. Rules for Writers. 7th ed. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012. Print. Abbreviated “RW” in calendar. Jerskey, Maria. Globalization: A Reader for Writers. Oxford University Press, 2014. Print. Patchett, Ann. State of Wonder. 2011. New York: Harper Perennial Olive, 2014. Print.

Class Calendar Unit 1: Education in a Global Perspective (reading) / Summary and Analysis (writing) W 9/02 Introduction. A closer look at “class participation” F 9/04 In-class diagnostic writing. RW Secs. 46, 28-29 (grammar review). Writing due: Introductory

letter W 09/09 Basic summary and paraphrase; the Academic Conduct Code. Boroditsky, “How Does Our

Language Shape the Way We Think?” TS/IS: Chs. 1&2 F 09/11 Summary vs. analysis; quoting. RW Secs. 57-60, 37 (quotation and citation, MLA style); TS/IS: Ch.

3. Writing: Basic summary of Boroditsky M 09/14 Reading: Polanki, “Operation Mind Your Language.” Writing due: Basic summary of Polanki W 09/16 Writing outlines. TS/IS Chs. 5, 12; Iyer, “Lonely Places.” Summary due Unit 2: Global Citizenship (reading) / Explication and Argument (writing) F 09/18 Summary vs analysis; the argument-driven essay. Writing due: Analytical summary of Iyer M 09/21 Reading: Cole, “The White Savior Industrial Complex”; TS/IS Intro, Ch.11. Summary due

20

W 09/23 Oral presentations assigned; Mini self-assessment: Class participation and norms F 09/25 Oral presentation group practice. Reading: Gleiser, “Globalization: Two Visions of the Future.”

Writing due: Basic summary of Gleiser M 09/28 Paper workshop. Draft of Paper 1 due W 09/30 Reading: TS/IS Ch. 6 “Naysayers” F 10/02 Writing conclusions. Reading: TS/IS Ch. 4 “Three Ways to Respond” M 10/05 Paralinguistics in presentation. Reading: RW Secs. 10, 27, 28, 47 (sentence structure) W 10/07 Quiz #1. Writing due: Final version of Paper 1 Unit 3: Great Debates (reading) / Argument and Comparative Analysis (writing) F 10/09 Reading: Wasserstrom, “A Mickey Mouse Approach to Globalization.” Writing due: Analytical

summary of Wasserstrom T 10/13 (Monday schedule). Presentation #1. Reading: Appiah, “The Shattered Mirror.” Writing due:

Outline of Appiah W 10/14 Reading: Leonard, “Death by Monoculture.” Writing due: Analytical summary of Leonard. F 10/16 Presentation #2. Reading: Nobel, “The Last Inuit of Quebec.” Writing due: Basic summary of

Nobel M 10/19 Presentation #3; comparative analysis: Reading: TS/IS Ch. 8 “Connecting the Parts”; Whitty, “All the

Disappearing Islands.” Writing due: Basic summary of Whitty W 10/21 Writing due: Thesis statement workshop for Paper #2 F 10/23 Presentation #4. Reading: Nasser, “Do Some Cultures Have Their Own Ways of Going Mad?”

Writing due: Outline of Nasser M 10/26 Paper workshop. Writing due: Draft of Paper 2 W 10/28 Presentation #5. Reading: Fadiman, “Birth.” Writing due: Analytical summary of Fadiman F 10/30 Mid-semester self-evaluation M 11/02 Quiz #2 W 11/04 Reading: Afridi, “A Gentle Madness.” Writing due: Basic summary of Afridi Unit 4: Reflecting, Revisiting (reading) / Synthesis (writing) F 11/06 Literary terms for discussing a novel. State of Wonder preview M 11/09 Reading: State of Wonder Chs. 1-2. Writing due: Reading Journal 1 W 11/11 Reading: State of Wonder Chs. 3-4; RW Sec. 19 (sentence fragments). Reading Journal 2 F 11/13 Reading: State of Wonder Chs. 5-6; Reading Journal 3 M 11/15 Reading: State of Wonder Chs. 7-8; Writing due: Reading Journal 4 W 11/18 Thematic review of readings; brainstorming for textual connections; writing the synthesis paper

Reading: State of Wonder Chs. 9-10; RW Sec. 20 (run-on sentences, comma splices). Writing due: Reading Journal 5

F 11/20 Reading due: State of Wonder Ch. 11. Writing due: Reading Journal 6 M 11/23 Thesis workshop. Writing due: Thesis & Outline for Paper 3 M 11/30 Paper workshop. Writing due: Draft of Paper 3 W 12/02 Vocabulary and grammar review. Reading: TS/IS Ch 9; RW 16-18 and 31 (word choice), 32-39

(punctuation) F 12/04 Quiz #3 M 12/07 Portfolio workshop (feedback given in class). Writing due: Draft of Final Portfolio W 12/09 Last day of class; Course evaluations. Writing due: Final Version of Final Portfolio

21

WR 100 WRITING SEMINAR GLOBAL DOCUMENTARY (FALL 2015)

Instructor: Marisa Milanese (milanese@bu.edu; 617-358-1559) Office Hours: Monday (1:30-2:30), Thursday (9:30-11:30), and by appointment

Course Description: In this course, we will study documentary film from a global perspective, examining how Western filmmakers represent foreign cultures and how international filmmakers represent their country’s social and historical moments. We will analyze filmmakers’ aesthetic, political, and ethical choices to consider how such choices shape their documentary practices and reflect their subject positions. The films we will study are Cannibal Tours, Born into Brothels, A State of Mind, One Day in September, and 5 Broken Cameras.

Course Goals: [Listed here in full syllabus. See section 4.1 in the certificate application.]

Course Requirements: As a writing seminar, WR 100 requires both a good deal of reading and writing and your active involvement in a variety of activities. Specific course requirements are:

• self-assessment • exercises as assigned • research quiz • three major papers • oral presentation • final portfolio • two conferences • attendance and participation

Course Materials: Turabian, Kate L. Student’s Guide to Writing College Papers. 4th ed. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2010. Course reader, which includes citations for each source (see below for a complete list of citations, too) As needed, we will also be using the online grammar handbook Norton/Write

(http://www.wwnorton.com/college/english/write/writesite/)

Blackboard: Our class has a Blackboard site that contains the syllabus, assignments, and other course-related materials. You can log in to our Blackboard page at: http://learn.bu.edu. Krasker Film Library/Netflix: Most of the documentaries we will study this semester can be screened at the Krasker Film Library (in the basement of Mugar Memorial Library), on Netflix Watch instantly, or through an online link that I will provide. Please note that some of our films are R-rated, address sensitive issues, and include graphic images.

Assignments: You will be given a range of assignments in this course, including a self-assessment, various reading and writing exercises, a quiz, three major papers, an oral presentation, and a final portfolio. Students who prepare diligently for class, participate actively, and take the homework exercises and drafts seriously generally learn more and write better final papers than those who do not. Self-Assessment: At the beginning of the semester, you will be asked to submit a written self-assessment in which you take stock of your reading and writing abilities and establish some personal goals you wish to pursue over the course of the semester. For grading purposes, your self-assessment will be considered your first exercise. Exercises: You will be assigned many reading, writing, and research exercises this semester—nearly one for every class meeting. I post every exercise assignment on Blackboard Assignments, and you should publish every exercise on Digication. Exercises will not receive explicit grades, although you will receive credit for completing them on time. Incomplete exercises will not receive credit.

22

Quiz: Toward the end of the semester, you will take a quiz on the research skills we’ve studied and practiced. The quiz will be graded and can’t be made up or turned in late if you’re absent. Major Papers (drafts and final versions): You will write drafts (sometimes multiple drafts) for each paper. Drafts will not receive explicit grades, although you will receive credit for completing and publishing them on Digication on time. Remember that you are more likely to write a better final paper if you write a substantive draft before seeking peer or instructor feedback. All drafts and final papers must be word-processed and be documented in MLA style. Please include a word count (available as a function on most word processors) at the end of all written work. Lightning Talk: Near the end of the semester, you will give a brief Lightning Talk (oral presentation) on the topic of your final paper. In this presentation, you will explain to the class the topic and methodology of our class’s capstone project. This presentation is not a formal speech, but a talk, after which you will receive feedback from your classmates. Portfolio: On the last day of the semester, you will be asked to submit a portfolio containing your self-assessment, major papers (drafts and final versions), other supporting artifacts, and an introductory essay. The portfolio provides you with an opportunity to document and reflect on your development as a reader and writer over the course of the semester—and how this development applies to other contexts. Sharing of Student Writing: Experienced writers routinely share their work with others, because they understand that the best way to improve a piece of writing is to test it out with actual readers. In this class, you will learn how to respond productively to the writing of others and how to use feedback from others to improve your own work. All students in the class will be required to share at least one draft of each paper. If you are concerned about sharing your writing, please talk with me. Grading and Evaluation: Your final grade will be calculated as follows:

• Exercises and Drafts 5.0% • Paper 1 10.0% • Paper 2 22.5% • Lightning Talk 5.0% • Research Quiz 5.0% • Paper 3 35.0% • Group Conference 2.5% • Final Portfolio 10.0% • Participation 5.0%.

You are also required to attend two conferences with me and may miss no more than three classes before your final grade is lowered by 1/3 of a letter grade for each class or conference missed. [The full syllabus continues with additional policies and guidance: attendance and participation policies, information about the writing center, academic conduct notice, links to university resources, etc.]

Class Calendar

Unit 1: (Mostly) Observing W 09/02 Introduction to course (Defining documentary film) F 09/04 History of Documentary Film; Berrett, “An Old-School Notion”; Nichols, excerpt from

Introduction to Documentary; Film Glossary; Writing due: Self-assessment/Response to Nichols (No class Mon.)

W 09/07 The Core of an Argument/Cannibal Tours; Turabian 1.2.2.-1.5 (pp. 16-25; What Researchers Do); Nichols, excerpt from Introduction to Doc; Writing due: Film Response #1; Paper 1 assigned

23

F 09/11 Cannibal Tours cont’d; Entering the Conversation, Planning Your Argument; Sontag, excerpt from On Photography; Turabian 6 (63-74); Writing due: Free write responses to Bruner and O’Rourke

M 09/14 Drafting and the Introduction; Turabian 8.1-8.5 (pp. 83-87; Drafting Your Paper) and 13.1-13.1.5 (pp. 119-26; Draft Your Final Introduction); Writing due: Planning/Prospectus for Paper 1

W 09/16 Peer Review; Writing due: Intro + two body par. for peer editing (Conferences begin 9/16) Unit 2: Participating F 09/18 A State of Mind; Writing due: Film Response #2 (follow the format for Film Response #1) M 09/21 A State cont’d; Jolliffe/Zinnes, “A State of Mind”; UN, “Human Rights in DPRK” W 09/23 Quoting, Paraphrasing, Summarizing; “Springtime for Kim Il-sung”; Turabian 9, 10 (Quoting,

Plagiarism); Writing due: Summary + Integration F 09/25 Born Into Brothels; Writing due: Film Response #3 M 09/28 Born Into Brothels cont’d; Wieder, “Brothel”; Roston, “Avijit”; Kaimal “Prostitution” W 09/30 Locating an Opportunity for Engagement; Michel, “From ‘Their Eyes’ to ‘New Eyes’”; Abel and

Bien-Aimé, “Should Prostitution Be a Crime?”; Writing due: Locating an Opp. for Engagement F 10/02 Using Theory Sources; Roy-Leven, “Jean Rouch”; Foucault, excerpt from Discipline and Punish M 10/05 Theory Sources continued; Edward Said, excerpt from Orientalism; Paper 2 assigned W 10/07 Model Paper and Coherence; Writing due: Critique of WR paper F 10/09 Writing due: Planning and Prospectus for Paper 2 for in class peer review (No class Mon.) T 10/13 Documentary Ethics; Nichols, “Doc Distortion”; Sontag, excerpt from On Photography W 10/14 Revising Sentences; Writing due: Intro + two body paragraphs for sentence revision F 10/16 Deepening Analysis; Writing due: Bring any two body paragraphs for close analysis Unit 3: The Camera As Character M 10/19 Abstracts and Conclusions; Turabian 12 (pp. 115-118; Revising) and 13.2-13.3 (pp. 126-7) W 10/21 One Day in September; Writing due: Film response #4 F 10/23 The One Day controversy; Said, “A New Kind of Thriller”; Macdonald, “My Film is Not

Biased”; Nick Davis, “One Day in September” M 10/26 Susan Sontag and Leni Riefenstahl (close analysis exercise in class) W10/28 5 Broken Cameras; Kino Lorber Inc., 5BC Press Materials; Writing due: Film Response #5 F 10/30 The 5 Broken Cameras controversy; Stein, “Viral Occupation”; Miskin, “Slander Charges” M 11/02 Finding the Right Question; Turabian (pp. 26-33); Writing due: Critique of Sample Paper 3 W 11/04 Sontag and Style; Sontag, intro to “Fascinating Fascism”; Writing due: Response to Sontag F 11/6—F 11/13 Lightning Talks M 11/16—M 11/23: Info Literacy (bring laptops; research quiz 11/23): (No class 11/25-27) M 11/30 Fine-tuning; Writing due: Drafts for editing (email partner full draft by 7 pm on 12/1) W 12/02 Draft review/preparing for the final portfolio F 12/04 Proofreading Workshop; Writing due: Final version of your draft to class printed on paper M 12/07 Films and Assignments in your Future; in class: critique of sample portfolio essay W 12/09 Last Day of Class; Writing due: Final Portfolio

24

WR 150: WRITING AND RESEARCH SEMINAR THE CAMPAIGN: RUNNING FOR THE PRESIDENCY (SPRING 2016) Instructor: Dr. David Shawn (dshawn@bu.edu; 617-358-1508)

Office Hrs: Thursday10-12 & by appointment Course Description: This course focuses on the question American voters will decide this year: who will be the next American president. In debates, speeches, campaign appearances, and advertising, candidates will be making their case; in primaries, caucuses and conventions, voters will make their choices; and, at the same time, scholars & political commentators will scrutinize the candidates, their policies, and their campaigns. In this course, students will participate as researchers and writers in this democratic process. Students will compose biographical sketches, memos, position papers, and political analyses. Students will investigate how candidates define themselves and attack their opponents; how the candidates respond to criticism, gaffes, scandals, and polls; and why certain candidates can separate themselves from the pack. Campaigns offer visions of the future, but placing this one in historical context will also enable us to see how the past might influence this present contest. Course Goals: [Listed here in full syllabus. See section 4.1 in the certificate application.] Course Requirements: As a writing seminar, WR 150 requires both a good deal of reading and writing and your active involvement in a variety of class activities. Specific course requirements are: a self-assessment, additional exercises as assigned, three major papers, a final portfolio, one conference with your instructor, and attendance and participation. Course Materials: Cicero, Quintus. How to Win an Election. Graff, G. & C. Birkenstein. They Say/I Say. 3rd ed. W.W. Norton, 2014. Print. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 7th ed. Modern Language Association, 2009. Print. Turabian, Kate L. Student’s Guide to Writing College Papers. 4th ed. Chicago: U Chicago P, 2010. Print. White, T.H. The Making of the President, 1960. New York: Atheneum, 2961. Print. Blackboard Site (BB): Contains syllabus, calendar, assignments, and additional texts (visual & print). Writing & Speaking Assignments: You will be given a range of writing and speaking assignments in this course, summarized below. Although much of this work will not be graded, the writing you do is important. Students who prepare diligently for class, participate actively, and take homework and drafts seriously generally learn more and write better final papers than those who do not. Self-Assessment: At the beginning of the semester, you will be asked to submit a written self-assessment in which you take stock of your reading and writing abilities and establish some personal goals you wish to pursue over the course of the semester. In-Class Writing: You will write regularly during class. I recommend that you purchase a notebook to contain this work and that you bring this notebook with you to class each day. You may use a laptop as long as it does not disturb other students in the class. Homework Exercises: You will periodically be assigned homework exercises that will help you work with the readings, generate ideas for your papers, or practice skills. Prospectus: A prospectus can take many different forms; in this course, the prospectus will indicate to a reader your intentions with regard to the final project as it is in the planning stages. The prospectus will indicate the rationale and questions that are motivating the paper, the type of sources you will examine, the relationship of the project to existing scholarship, and other preliminary concerns. More information to follow.

25

Annotated Bibliography: An annotated bibliography provides a brief summary of a number of texts’ arguments, the scope of these works, and their relevance to a particular student research project. Further information on annotated bibliographies will follow. Oral Presentations: Each student will present to the class at least once, an individual presentation on work in progress. These will take place in conjunction with one of papers. These short presentations will give you an opportunity to recite significant words from a primary source, to make your essay’s argument, to summarize and respond to the arguments of others, and to provide evidence from your exhibits in support of your thesis. Students will produce a handout for fellow students, as well. Major Papers and Drafts: In this class, we generally will use the term draft to refer to unfinished or preliminary versions of your three major papers. You will be required to write at least one draft of paper 1 and at least two drafts of papers 2 and 3. For each paper, one of your drafts will receive comments from me; the other will receive feedback from your classmates. Drafts are required but not graded. Remember, though, that you are more likely to receive useful feedback—and therefore produce a better final paper—if you write a substantive draft. Your performance on your drafts will also affect your miscellaneous writing grade. Portfolio: At the end of the semester, you will be asked to submit a portfolio containing your self-assessment, major papers (selected drafts and final versions), other supporting artifacts, and an introductory essay. The portfolio provides you with an opportunity to document and reflect on your development as a reader and writer over the course of the semester. Your portfolio will contain work that has already been graded. This work will not be re-graded in the portfolio. Sharing of Student Writing: Experienced writers routinely share their work with others, because they understand that the best way to improve a piece of writing is to test it out with actual readers. In this class, you will develop your abilities to respond productively to another’s writing and to use feedback from readers to improve your own work. If you are concerned about sharing your writing, please talk with me about your concerns. Grading and Evaluation: Your final grade will be calculated as follows:

Paper 1: 20% Paper 2: 25% Paper 3 w/Prospectus & Annotated Bibliography: 35% Oral Presentation/Participation/Miscellaneous Writing 10% Final Portfolio 10%

[The full syllabus continues with additional policies and guidance: attendance and participation policies, information about the writing center, academic conduct notice, links to university resources, etc.]

Class Calendar

Introduction W 01/20 Introduction to the Presidential Campaign; Diagnostic; Assign self-assessment F 01/22 Readings: How to Win an Election; Assign paper 1 Unit 1: Candidate Identity M 01/25 Self-Assessment due; Romney Announcement W 01/27 Critics: Witcover (NPR interview website/text) & White (Making 26-29 & 59-62) F 01/29 Discuss Student Model on Candidate Announcements (handout) M 02/01 Introductions: work on draft of paper 1 (problem statements and motivating questions) W 02/03 Question/thesis/list of key points due; discuss Iowa result

26

F 02/05 First draft paper 1 due: peer review workshop & revision plans M 02/08 They Say/I Say (parts 1& 2) W 02/10 What happened in the New Hampshire primary? Unit 2: Candidate Problem F 02/12 Paper 1 Final due; Assign paper 2 (Advice Memo to the Candidate) M 02/15 Holiday (President’s Day)—No class T 02/16 Defining candidates’ problems. White (Chs. 4 & 8 78-114; 222-243); Paper 2 brainstorming W 02/17 Advice Model: Sorensen on JFK’s “Catholic problem” (Counselor 156-166), JFK speech (BB) F 02/19 Paper 2: Provisional Question/thesis/list of key points w/examples from candidate & critics M 02/22 Discuss Nevada & SC results; Hess “Presidential Qualities” (BB); Paper 2: Identify Candidate,

Problem, & Texts w/three relevant examples W 02/24 Obama’s Rev. Wright problem (readings from Axelrod’s Believer - BB); discuss Nevada (for

Republicans) F 02/26 Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” (BB) M 02/29 Draft of paper 2 due & Peer Review; Exercise on using Indexes; discuss SC results (for Dems) W 03/02 Discuss Super Tuesday result; Workshop on synthesizing research F 03/04 Second Draft of paper 2 due & Peer Review M 03/14 Work in Progress Presentations; Assign paper 3: W 03/16 Work in Progress Presentations F 03/18 Assign Paper 3; Brainstorming - Paper 3 topics Unit 3: Individual Final Projects M 03/21 Paper 2 Final due; Clarifying Paper 3 topics W 03/23 LIBRARY VISIT: Physical Tour & intro to website F 03/25 Structure & Style: WR Journal models: headings, questions, and meta-commentary M 03/28 Workshop on Paper 3 prospectus; Prospectus models W 03/30 Questions, Provisional Thesis, List of Key points due; F 04/01 Prospectus due; [Last day to drop class with a “W” grade} M 04/04 Storyboards: SGWCP (41-43; 76-77); student models of W 04/06 Storyboard of Paper 3 due: in class workshop F 04/08 Work in Progress Presentations M 04-10 through F 04/14: Out of Class Peer Review Meetings M 04/11 Work in Progress Presentations W 04/13 Work in Progress Presentations F 05/15 Draft paper 3 due: Peer Review M 05/18 through F 05/22: Out-of-Class Peer Review Meetings M 04/18 Holiday (Patriot’s Day)—No class W 04/20 Work in Progress Presentations F 04/22 Work in Progress Presentations M 04/25 Paper 3 Final Due W 04/27 Course evaluations F 04/29 Final portfolio due electronically

27

WR 598: TUTORING ESL STUDENTS IN WRITING (FALL 2015) Wednesdays, 4-5:30 pm, CSS 322

Instructor: Maria Zlateva, Associate Director for ESL, mariazl@bu.edu Office hours: M 1-2, Th 11-12, and by appointment

Course Description: This course is designed to prepare both undergraduate and graduate-student writing center tutors to work effectively with ESL students. No previous familiarity with linguistics or ESL language teaching is required. The modules address the unique needs of ESL students and provide research-based principles for working with ESL students of different proficiency levels. Upon completing the course, you will have explicit knowledge of those aspects of English that pose particular challenges for ESL learners and understand how to help ESL students become independent self-monitoring writers. Requirements: To complete this course successfully, you must attend all sessions and participate actively, complete readings and assignments on time, observe an ESL class and tutorial, and submit an end-of-semester service learning reflection (portfolio). Class Format: The course strikes a balance between theory and practice. Most sessions will include discussions of important theoretical issues bearing on tutoring ESL students. We will be working with assigned readings on current ESL research and best writing center practices. There will also be a practicum component in which you will observe a WR 097/WR 098 class or an entry-level ESL tutoring session. The observations will be used as case studies that will allow us to consider specific aspects of practical tutoring and share insights about specific concerns or interests. Texts:

• Rafoth, Multilingual Writers and Writing Centers, Utah State UP, 2015. (MWWC) • Bedford Guide for Tutors, 5th ed. 2010. (BGT) • Bruce/Rafoth, ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, Boynton/Cook, Heinemann, 2009.

(ESLWR) • Blackboard (BB): Contains additional readings and materials as well as detailed instructions for each

session. Additional Readings: These are listed in order of class presentation and posted to Blackboard: 1. Matsuda, P.K. and Matthew Hammill. “Second Language Writing Pedagogy.” A Guide to Composition

Pedagogies. Ed. Tate et al. OUP, 2014. 266-282. 2. Williams, J. and Carol Severino. “The Writing Center and Second Language Writers.” Journal of Second

Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 165-172. 3. Harris, M. “Cultural Conflicts in the Writing Center: Expectations and Assumptions of ESL Students.” The

St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 206-219. 4. Thonus, T.” What Are the Differences? Tutor Interactions with First- and Second-Language Writers.”

Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 227-42. 5. Meyer, E. and Louise Z. Smith. “Reading and Writing across the Disciplines.” The Practical Tutor. NY:

Oxford UP, 1987. 227-255. 6. Grabe, W. and Cui Zhang. “Reading and Writing Together.” TESOL Journal 4.1, March 2013: 9-24. 7. Rafoth, Ben. “Academic Writing.” Multilingual Writers and Writing Centers. Utah State University Press,

2015. 74-79. 8. Santos, T. “Professors’ Reactions to the Academic Writing of Non-native Speaking Students.” TESOL

Quarterly 22, 1 (1988): 69-90. 9. Moussu, L. and Nicholas David. “Finding a Center for ESL Writers.” ESL Readers and Writers in Higher Education. Routledge, 2015. 49-63. 10. Boyne, M. and Don Lepan. “Specific Language Difficulties.” Common Errors in English. ESL Edition.

NY: Broadview Press, 1995. 151-155. 11. Connor, U. “New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric.” TESOL Quarterly 36 (2002): 493-510.

28

12. Currie, P. “Staying out of Trouble: Apparent Plagiarism and Academic Survival.” Journal of Second Language Writing 7.1 (1998): 1-18.

13. Weigle, S. and G. Nelson. “Novice Tutors and Their ESL Tutees: Three Case Studies of Tutor Roles and Perceptions of Tutorial Success.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 203-55.

14. Brooks, J. “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 168-173.

Class Schedule

(Readings identified by text abbreviation or bibliography entry number.)

W 9/2: Course Introduction: The specifics of ESL tutoring and its place in the writing center; expectations and assumptions of the parties involved; starting a tutor-tutee partnership: bridging languages and cultures; tutor-instructor collaboration. Reading: 1; BGT 65-69; ESLWR 1-17.

W 9/9: Metacognitive Assessment of the Tutee: Overview of contrastive rhetoric and educational conventions; features of ESL writing, argumentation patterns, and academic roles; clarifying the stages of ESL competence—the balance of language skills; diagnosing student needs and setting a tutoring agenda. Reading: 2, 3, 4; BGT 58-63.

W 9/16: Reading Comprehension and Its ESL Challenges—Connections to L2 Writing: The second-language reading process; academic writing and genre awareness; mental outlining and mapping techniques; helping students review their writing using heuristic techniques. Reading: 5, 6.

W 9/23: Structuring the Tutorial Session: Setting priorities among higher-order and lower-order concerns; “remediable” vs. the “fossilized” features; choosing a level of intervention; the skill of “grammaring” vs. prescriptive grammar knowledge. Reading: 7, 8, 9; ESLWR 33-50.

W 9/30: Approaching Grammar: Language challenges posed by L1 and L2 linguistic patterns of structure and usage; trouble spots and diagnostic exercises; working with ESL materials and WC resources. Reading: 10, 11.

W 10/7: Error Analysis and Treatment of Errors: Reference guidelines on types of errors; predicting and understanding the problem; tailoring tutoring techniques to the problem. Reading: ESLWR ch.17.

W 10/14: Error correction—Pedagogical Strategies: Self-monitoring and editing for language issues; types of feedback and follow-up; use of handbooks. Reading: ESLWR ch.10.

W 10/21: Observations and Conferences: No class meeting.

W 10/28: Conversation with Sources: Applying the “acknowledgment /response” model in tutoring; integrating source material with appropriate diction and grammar; avoiding plagiarism. Reading: 12; ESLWR ch.13.

W 11/4: Observations and Conferences: No class meeting.

W 11/11: Case Studies. Targeting cross-cultural and linguistic issues. Reading: 13; BGT 99-110.

W 11/18: Grammar & Style—Who Owns This Paper? Minimalist vs. proofreading approach; negotiated integration; identifying patterns of errors, or “tics”; guiding students in developing self-editing strategies. Reading: 14, ESLWR ch.18.

W 12/2: Case Study Consultations; Observations and Conferences (Second Round)

W 12/9: Case Studies—Debriefing: Setting individual goals for the tutee to achieve a balance of skills; follow-up agenda and tracking progress; course conclusion and course evaluations.

29

CAS WRITING PROGRAM FACULTY SEMINAR: THRESHOLD CONCEPTS IN INFORMATION LITERACY AND WRITING STUDIES: NEW COLLABORATIONS

(SPRING 2016)

Facilitators: Kenneth Liss, Head of Liaison and Instruction Services, Mugar Memorial Library

Sarah Madsen Hardy, Senior Lecturer, CAS Writing Program Seminar Description: Threshold concepts, a pedagogical approach introduced a decade ago by former writing instructor Ray Land and his colleague Jan Meyer, offered a new way of thinking about disciplinary “habits of mind” and how to teach them. Threshold concepts are also at the heart of a new framework for information literacy introduced by librarians last year and a recent book on threshold concepts in writing studies (Wardle and Adler-Kassner, Naming What We Know, 2015). In this three-part seminar we will learn about threshold concepts, their application to writing programs and information literacy, and the opportunities they present for collaboration between writing instructors and librarians.

February 24th: Threshold Concepts and Their Use in Writing Programs

Cousin, Glynis. “An Introduction To Threshold Concepts.” Planet. 17 (2006): 4-5. Land, Ray, Jan H.F. Meyer and Caroline Baillie. “Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning”

(Editors’ Preface). Threshold Concepts and Transformational Learning. Ed. Ray Land, Jan H.F. Meyer and Caroline Baillie. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2008. ix-xv. Print.

Downs, Doug, and Liane Robertson. “Threshold Concepts In First-Year Composition”. Naming What We

Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies. Ed. Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle. University Press of Colorado, 2015. 105–121. Web.

Clark, Irene L., and Andrea Hernandez. “Genre Awareness, Academic Argument, and Transferability.”

The WAC Journal 22 (2011): 65-78. Web.

March 16th Threshold Concepts and the New ACRL Framework for Information Literacy

Association of College & Research Libraries. Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. (2015). Web.

Kuglitsch, Rebecca Z. “Teaching for Transfer: Reconciling the Framework with Disciplinary Information

Literacy.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 15.3 (2015): 457-70. Web. Purdy, James P. and Joyce R. Walker. “Liminal Spaces and Research Identity The Construction of

Introductory Composition Students as Researchers.” Pedagogy 16.1 (2016): 9-41. Web. Houtman, Eveline. “‘Mind-Blowing’: Fostering Self-Regulated Learning in Information Literacy

Instruction.” Communications in Information Literacy 9.1 (2015): 6-18. Web.

30

March 30th: Librarians and Writing Instructors Collaborating

Shields, Kathy. “Research Partners, Teaching Partners: A Collaboration between FYC Faculty and Librarians to Study Students’ Research and Writing Habits.” Internet Reference Services Quarterly 19.3-4 (2014): 207-18. Web.

Thomas, Alison B. and Alex R. Hodges. “Build Sustainable Collaboration: Developing and Assessing

Metaliteracy Across Information Ecosystems.” Association of College and Research Libraries Conference: Creating Sustainable Community, Portland, OR 25-28 March 2015. Web.

Barratt, Caroline Cason, Kristin Nielsen, Christy Desmet, and Ron Balthazor. “Collaboration is Key:

Librarians and Composition Instructors Analyze Student Research and Writing.” Portal: Libraries and the Academy 9.1 (2009): 37–56. Web.

Pope-Ruark, Rebecca. “Know Thy Audience: Helping Students Engage a Threshold Concept Using

Audience-Based Pedagogy.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 5.1 (2011): 1-16. Web.