prepared by emari digiorgio 27 june 2011 goals from...

Writing Program Coordinator’s Report

1

Prepared by Emari DiGiorgio 27 June 2011 Goals from Academic Year 2010-11 This was an exciting year for the Writing Program. Since prior Writing Program Coordinator Professor Heather McGovern had established and initiated a sequence of portfolio assessment for first-year writing courses, Professor Emari DiGiorgio was able to continue those efforts and make progress on other Writing Program Goals in her first year as coordinator. The Writing Program’s goals and activities from Academic Year 2010-11 are as follows:

1.) The Writing Program continued to assess first-year writing courses in rotation, this year focusing on GEN 2121/GSS 2121, Argument and Persuasion.

2.) The Program revised the BASK 1101, College Writing Portfolio Rubric so that assessors will now indicate student performance on each objective on a scale from 1-4, instead of just offering a pass/fail rating.

3.) The Writing Program re-instated the Writing Advisory Committee (WAC). Eight faculty members representing each of the college's schools, including the Library, were selected to help oversee the W2 approval process, to oversee a periodic review of existing W2 courses, and to make recommendations of topics for the new Writing Program Appetizer Series and for the annual summer Writing Institute.

4.) In fall 2010 and spring 2011, Professor Carra Hood facilitated two Punctuation and Citation Workshops. These three-hour Saturday workshops offered students supplemental instruction in punctuation and sentence-level work, research basics, and MLA and APA citation. Since “Correct use of grammar and syntax” and “Correct use of mechanics” were two of the top four areas that faculty indicated they’d like help teaching in a survey administered in 2009-2010, these workshops were well received by faculty, staff, and students alike.

5.) In spring 2011, Professor Emari DiGiorgio coordinated the Writing Program Appetizer Series, a trio of one-hour pedagogy discussions. At each session, three faculty members from across the curriculum were invited to present for seven minutes apiece on the designated topic, and the remaining time was dedicated to conversation among the presenters and participants. A compilation DVD will be made with excerpts from each of the three sessions.

6.) Professor Judy Copeland hosted the Writing Program Showcase, which allowed students from upper-level W1 courses and the prizewinners of the annual Mimi Schwartz and Jennifer Cakert Awards to share their writing.

7.) The Writing Program was able to award $1025 to student writers through the Mimi Schwartz Award, which awards two prizes for creative nonfiction: a first prize of $125 and a second prize of $75; and the Jennifer Cakert Awards, which award $175 and $100 prizes in three separate categories—first-year non-fiction, poetry, and creative non-fiction.

8.) This year also marks the Fifth Annual Women’s History Month Poetry and Prose

[Use this space to describe any goals your program set and to report results your program measured.]


2

Reading, facilitated by Professor DiGiorgio. The reading features twenty or more emerging and established women writers from the tri-state area and is part of the Women’s History Month programming. To increase engagement in the College community and to foster exchange between faculty and residential life, the Writing Program partnered with the Diversity Living Learning Community to host this year’s reading in the Juniper Lounge of Housing V.

9.) The Writing Program also embarked on its first Program Review in 18 years and received thoughtful feedback from an external reviewer.

Fall Undergraduate Enrollment Tables (will be pre-filled by Institutional Research) 2009 2010 School FTF TR

FR 202 64 SO 181 123 JR 162 363 SR 177 392

FTF TR FR 191 48 SO 168 150 JR 190 390 SR 189 414

College FTF TR FR 1,080 255 SO 774 569 JR 587 1,257 SR 682 1,513

FTF TR FR 1,087 225 SO 453 598 JR 681 1,355 SR 706 1,560

SOURCE: SURE Enrollment Files Fall 2009 & Fall 2010

Summary of Courses Taught by Program Faculty (pre-filled by Institutional Research)

W1’s Total Course Enrollments

FA 2009 SP 2010 FA 2010 SP 2011

Course Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj ANTH 2315 22 1 21 1 21 1 BASK 1101 136 8 20 1 190 7 4 31 2 BIOL 4800 1 1 COMM 2103 25 1 25 1 26 1 25 1 CRIM 4800 1 1 GAH 2121 25 1 25 1 25 1 25 1 GAH 2196 26 1 GAH 2258 23 1 GAH 2260 16 1 GAH 3604 17 1 GAH 3611 17 1 17 1 GAH 3731 15 1 GAH 3800 1 1 1 1 1 1 GAH 4611 9 1 GAH 4800 1 1 GEN 1120 401 1 15 146 6 350 2 12 152 2 5 GEN 2121 24 1 49 2 50 2 GEN 2240 64 3 44 1 1 GEN 2326 9 1 35 1 23 1


3

GEN 3612 25 1 22 1 GEN 3800 1 1 7 1 GEN 3952 8 1 5 1 7 1 GEN 4800 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 GIS 3307 24 1 24 1 25 1 GIS 4625 25 1 GIS 4619 7 1 GIS 4650 18 1 17 1 16 1 GIS 4654 16 1 GIS 4800 1 1 1 1 GNM 4800 2 2 GSS 2121 284 11 198 2 6 227 9 268 2 9 GSS 2150 21 1 GSS 2800 1 1 GSS 3282 35 2 GSS 4800 1 1 LANG 3241 21 1 20 1 LITT 2160 25 1 24 1 17 1 23 1 LITT 2173 20 1 LITT 2237 25 1 26 1 23 1 60 2 1 LITT 3270 18 1 14 1 10 1 LITT 3271 18 1 LITT 3310 25 1 LITT 3635 18 1 13 1 LITT 3636 13 1 14 1 17 1 11 1 LITT 3800 2 1 LITT 4354 20 1 1 LITT 4800 1 1 1 1 LITT 4900 2 1 MGMT 4800 1 1 PUBH 3415 42 1 35 1

W2’s Total Course Enrollments

FA 2009 SP 2010 FA 2010 SP 2011

Course Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj Students Reg Adj ACCT 3113 59 2 55 2 88 2 1 84 1 2 ACCT 4110 23 1 26 1 23 1 36 1 ANTH 2152 29 1 ANTH 2410 16 1 20 1 ANTH 3122 1 1 ANTH 3625 11 1 16 3 15 1 ANTH 3643 25 1 23 1 24 1 ANTH 3681 13 1 14 1 ANTH 3900 6 1 ANTH 4685 9 1 ANTH 4800 1 1 ARTV 2176 31 1


4

ARTV 2800 1 1 ARTV 3800 1 1 ARTV 4950 3 1 4 1 ARTV 4951 4 1 BCMB 4800 1 1 BIOL 2100 29 1 30 1 BIOL 3350 8 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 BIOL 3435 29 1 BIOL 3499 9 1 BIOL 3500 3 1 BSNS 4112 142 6 1 183 7 1 158 6 1 183 6 1 CHEM 2510 22 2 CHEM 3320 12 1 11 1 CHEM 3350 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 COMM 3203 32 1 25 1 COMM 3300 30 1 29 1 COMM 3301 22 1 COMM 3303 32 1 19 1 30 1 COMM 4601 24 1 26 1 25 1 COMM 4800 2 2 CRIM 2101 35 1 29 1 CRIM 2140 54 2 CRIM 2141 30 1 91 3 84 3 89 3 CRIM 3104 33 1 CRIM 3114 28 1 CRIM 3123 10 1 16 1 CRIM 3604 7 1 20 1 CRIM 3628 12 1 CRIM 4800 1 1 1 1 CSIS 2222 27 1 13 1 26 1 30 1 CSIS 3241 27 1 25 1 CSIS 3381 20 1 20 1 CSIS 4469 10 1 12 1 ECON 3620 28 1 ECON 3636 23 1 23 1 ECON 4695 8 1 EDUC 3515 171 2 3 167 2 3 132 2 2 152 3 2 EDUC 4101 97 2 2 81 2 2 83 3 1 69 3 1 EDUC 4110 82 3 53 2 1 66 4 59 3 EDUC 4120 43 2 40 2 34 2 16 1 EDUC 4150 82 2 1 53 3 65 4 59 3 EDUC 4600 124 4 1 94 4 1 101 3 3 72 2 2 ENVL 2100 41 1 45 1 ENVL 3435 26 1 ENVL 4300 21 1 ENVL 4800 1 1 FINA 3121 30 1 33 1 30 1 50 2 FINA 3125 25 1 30 1 26 1 18 1


5

FINA 3600 15 1 14 1 11 1 6 1 FINA 4800 1 1 GAH 1002 25 1 GAH 1242 30 1 29 1 GAH 1244 30 1 30 1 GAH 1323 24 1 GAH 2102 30 1 GAH 2113 30 1 GAH 2114 62 2 34 1 GAH 2119 35 1 GAH 2136 30 1 GAH 2159 28 1 GAH 2162 29 1 GAH 2163 51 2 22 1 GAH 2165 40 2 47 2 GAH 2183 29 1 GAH 2216 60 2 61 2 35 1 67 2 GAH 2233 47 2 50 2 GAH 2254 27 1 GAH 2259 29 1 GAH 2268 29 1 GAH 2271 30 1 GAH 2286 13 1 GAH 2309 25 1 15 1 GAH 2319 30 1 26 1 GAH 2326 36 1 GAH 2336 29 1 GAH 2345 32 1 GAH 2346 29 1 GAH 2358 30 1 24 1 GAH 2374 30 1 GAH 2800 1 1 GAH 3119 30 1 GAH 3128 30 1 GAH 3202 31 1 GAH 3206 28 1 27 1 GAH 3210 30 1 30 1 GAH 3215 35 1 GAH 3228 30 1 30 1 GAH 3234 30 1 GAH 3310 26 1 27 1 GAH 3316 22 1 GAH 3617 29 1 GAH 3800 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 GAH 4800 2 1 GEN 1117 31 1 32 1 GEN 1302 32 1 GEN 2104 27 1 GEN 2800 1 1


6

GEN 3157 27 1 GEN 3161 34 1 29 1 GEN 3800 1 1 2 2 GEN 4800 1 1 GEOL 3221 12 1 GERO 3616 10 1 GERO 3754 1 1 GERO 3900 1 1 11 1 11 2 GIS 3207 25 1 25 1 GIS 3219 43 2 44 2 48 2 51 1 1 GIS 3305 35 1 33 1 35 1 25 1 GIS 3348 24 1 22 1 GIS 3351 55 1 GIS 3612 24 1 26 1 GIS 3649 25 1 GIS 3650 25 1 GIS 3651 26 1 48 2 27 1 GIS 3652 23 1 GIS 3659 23 1 GIS 3671 25 1 GIS 3672 25 1 GIS 3800 2 1 1 GIS 4601 25 1 31 2 21 1 GIS 4617 25 1 GIS 4621 54 1 1 GIS 4635 20 1 GIS 4636 25 1 24 1 GIS 4639 24 1 GIS 4642 25 1 24 1 25 1 GIS 4649 25 1 GIS 4800 1 1 1 1 GNM 1110 43 2 GNM 1124 59 1 1 47 1 1 31 1 29 1 GNM 1125 238 1 4 262 5 4 267 3 6 270 5 4 GNM 1154 23 1 26 1 GNM 2111 30 1 28 1 GNM 2137 30 1 29 1 30 1 30 1 GNM 2234 30 1 GNM 3800 1 1 GNM 4800 1 1 GSS 2111 47 2 48 2 GSS 2129 32 1 GSS 2190 35 1 GSS 2209 30 1 GSS 2240 32 1 30 1 GSS 2248 30 1 29 1 GSS 2253 15 1 30 1 GSS 2274 25 1 GSS 2337 25 1


7

GSS 2368 11 1 GSS 2642 37 1 29 1 30 1 28 1 GSS 2800 1 1 1 1 GSS 3118 34 1 GSS 3121 27 1 GSS 3146 28 1 30 1 28 1 30 1 GSS 3172 29 1 GSS 3240 29 1 54 2 GSS 3360 102 3 103 4 103 3 108 4 GSS 3800 1 1 3 2 1 GSS 3946 10 1 7 1 7 1 18 2 GSS 4800 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 HIST 2117 29 1 HIST 2120 18 1 15 1 HIST 2128 29 1 HIST 2146 35 1 30 1 HIST 2152 30 1 HIST 2153 9 1 HIST 2800 1 1 HIST 3103 17 1 30 1 HIST 3614 16 1 HIST 3616 24 1 HIST 4655 40 2 HIST 4656 19 1 HIST 4657 25 1 HIST 4658 37 2 HIST 4690 52 4 50 4 HIST 4691 51 4 20 2 HIST 4800 1 1 HTMS 2143 30 1 30 1 29 1 30 1 HTMS 3110 15 1 30 1 HTMS 3111 17 1 19 1 30 1 HTMS 4112 16 1 16 1 14 1 25 1 INTL 3112 13 1 15 1 INTL 3600 1 1 8 1 5 1 4 1 INTL 4100 5 1 LANG 3240 37 1 LANG 3251 19 1 20 1 LANG 3252 17 1 22 1 LANG 3253 20 1 21 1 LANG 4250 18 1 LITT 1101 19 1 LITT 2102 30 1 LITT 2103 29 1 LITT 2104 30 1 LITT 2105 29 1 LITT 2108 30 1 29 1 LITT 2109 30 1 LITT 2121 30 1


8

LITT 2123 87 3 51 2 43 2 46 2 LITT 2140 30 1 LITT 2145 12 1 LITT 2148 29 1 LITT 2174 29 1 25 1 LITT 2234 28 1 LITT 2238 23 1 LITT 2243 30 1 LITT 2306 30 1 LITT 2412 30 1 29 1 LITT 3106 31 1 LITT 3122 8 1 18 1 LITT 3123 29 1 LITT 3125 28 1 LITT 3129 16 1 LITT 3217 26 1 LITT 3223 30 1 LITT 3232 29 1 LITT 3311 28 1 LITT 3317 22 1 30 1 LITT 3621 29 1 LITT 3624 30 1 LITT 3800 1 1 LITT 4610 27 2 44 2 24 1 28 1 LITT 4800 1 1 LITT 4900 1 1 MARS 3360 34 1 33 1 33 1 35 1 MARS 3499 7 1 MARS 3500 2 1 MGMT 3110 153 2 4 139 2 3 146 2 3 174 3 3 MGMT 3111 40 2 49 2 74 2 1 34 1 MGMT 3112 14 1 15 1 MGMT 3123 59 2 61 1 1 30 1 31 1 MGMT 3124 31 1 27 1 30 1 61 2 MGMT 4100 1 1 MGMT 4610 22 1 17 1 13 1 MKTG 3202 45 2 40 2 MKTG 3210 31 1 32 1 32 1 26 1 MKTG 3250 28 1 30 1 30 1 30 1 MKTG 3350 30 1 31 1 28 1 30 1 MKTG 4470 29 1 36 2 16 1 46 2 MKTG 4727 30 1 25 1 NURS 3331 7 1 3 1 NURS 3334 33 2 30 1 NURS 3800 1 1 NURS 4335 18 1 3 1 29 1 4 1 NURS 4337 3 1 7 1 NURS 4638 40 3 29 1 NURS 4937 4 1 7 1


9

PHIL 1101 67 2 118 4 90 2 1 30 1 PHIL 1203 27 1 28 1 PHIL 2109 30 1 17 1 PHIL 2112 30 1 PHIL 3100 23 1 PHIL 3114 25 1 28 1 PHIL 3607 22 1 14 1 PHIL 4600 10 1 PHIL 4800 1 1 PLAW 3110 62 2 1 POLS 1800 1 1 POLS 2140 30 1 POLS 2190 30 1 33 1 POLS 2222 35 1 34 1 POLS 2235 33 1 27 1 30 1 POLS 2245 30 1 28 1 POLS 2800 2 2 4 4 POLS 3123 24 1 15 1 1 1 POLS 3221 31 1 27 1 POLS 3222 29 1 POLS 3225 31 1 31 1 30 1 POLS 3621 16 1 POLS 3641 25 1 POLS 3644 25 1 20 1 POLS 3800 4 1 2 2 7 4 3 3 POLS 4695 16 1 32 2 20 1 40 2 POLS 4800 13 2 5 5 9 8 5 4 PSYC 3242 123 5 91 4 129 5 79 3 PSYC 3616 15 1 PSYC 3618 26 1 PSYC 3705 7 1 8 1 PSYC 3754 2 1 1 1 PSYC 3900 12 1 4 1 3 1 PSYC 4800 1 1 1 1 PSYC 4820 1 1 PUBH 2315 30 1 PUBH 2450 30 1 38 1 PUBH 3102 19 1 19 1 PUBH 3560 PUBH 3620 28 1 PUBH 4113 17 1 17 1 PUBH 4810 3 1 2 1 PUBH 4950 8 6 32 6 20 6 15 3 SOCY 1100 28 1 SOCY 1105 22 1 22 1 25 1 27 1 SOCY 2111 25 1 27 1 28 1 28 1 SOCY 2213 30 1 SOCY 2410 15 1 14 1 SOCY 2642 18 1 20 1


10

SOCY 2652 24 1 25 1 SOCY 2745 12 1 13 1 13 1 SOCY 3625 11 1 8 3 12 1 SOCY 3642 25 1 25 1 SOCY 3681 25 1 21 1 SOCY 3742 15 1 19 1 SOCY 4685 15 1 SOWK 4601 61 3 60 3 SOWK 4602 58 3 62 3 SPAD 3715 31 1 34 1 36 1 36 1 SPAD 3716 39 2 30 2 38 2 36 2 SPAD 3717 19 1 40 1 32 1 42 1 SPAD 3816 7 2 1 2

* Graduate courses (5000 level & up) are not included ** The Writing Program has no specific faculty assigned only to it; Above is all courses taught with a W1 or W2 acronym respectively *** Courses & course sections added after 10th day may be omitted SOURCE: Faculty Workload Raw Data Reports Fall 2009, Spring 2010, Fall 2010, & Spring 2011; Discoverer Report “Program Review by Course Attribute” for Fall 2009, Spring 2010, Fall 2010, & Spring 2011

Summary of Degrees Granted (pre-filled by Institutional Research)

Not Applicable Coordinator Comments about Course Enrollment Tables: The tables above do not distinguish between Writing Program faculty and faculty who are members of other programs. The ** comment above is also incorrect, as there are seven faculty members who are also members of the BASK Program who are specifically assigned to teach in the Writing Program. Since first-year students are required to take (and pass with a grade of C or higher) a W1 course during their first year at the College, core Writing Program faculty dedicate at least two-thirds of their fall course offerings to one of the following five courses, which target first and second year students and teach foundational writing skills: BASK 1101, College Writing; GEN 1120, Rhetoric and Composition; GEN 2121, Argument and Persuasion; GSS 2121, Argument and Persuasion for the Social Sciences; and GEN 2240, Introduction to Research. Of course, with only seven full-time faculty members in the Writing Program, the Program must rely on a substantial number of adjunct faculty members and faculty from across the College to meet these enrollment needs. The most important piece of information in the W1 table has to do with first year writing course enrollment. Let’s start with BASK 1101, College Writing. In fall 2009, full-time Writing Program faculty members were able to staff eight sections of the course for a total of 136

[Use this space to reflect on the tables above, as well as on any applicable teaching innovations; curricular changes including delivery mode, track and certificate development; senior experience, internships etc.]


11

students. However, in fall 2010, BASK 1101, College Writing enrollment increased by 40%. To meet enrollment needs, adjunct faculty members taught 4 of 11 BASK 1101, College Writing courses, 36%. But even more startling, is that between fall 2009 and spring 2011, adjunct faculty members taught 87.5% of GEN 1120, Rhetoric and Composition; 80% of GEN 2121, Argument and Persuasion; and 89.7% of GSS 2121, Argument and Persuasion for Social Sciences. Only in GEN 2240, Introduction to Research did full-time faculty teach 80% of the sections offered, and this is because full-time faculty members piloted the course in spring 2010. The percentage of students who are taught by part-time/adjunct faculty in their required first-year writing course has risen fairly steadily over the last decade or so. As noted here, this number has now climbed to more than 80%. This is a direct result of the size of the incoming freshman class increasing at a much higher rate than the size of our Program. The high percentage of freshman enrolled in courses taught by adjuncts could be seen as a weakness in the College's first-year offerings, we believe. And we also want to underscore here a related, less obvious problem. Because the College Writing Requirement involves only one mandatory W1, in the first year, the majority of our graduates go through their entire careers here having taken only that one writing-intensive course from a part-time rather than a full-time instructor. As the size of the freshman class increases (one of the College’s goals), the number of first-year writing sections will have to increase. With so few full-time faculty members in the Writing Program, it will be difficult to accommodate these students’ needs without continuing to increase the number of adjunct instructors we hire. In addition, when core faculty members dedicate their time and resources to teaching first-year writing courses, they are not able to contribute as much time to upper-level W1 (or W2) courses that are also a part of the College Writing Requirement. The above tables also indicate that faculty members teaching G-courses contributed the largest percentages of the total number of W1 and W2 courses offered. The Education Program (EDUC), Literature Program (LITT), Management Program (MGMT), Marketing Program (MKTG), and Political Science Program (POLS) offer the greatest number of W2 courses. The Writing Program can use these figures to create resources to target specific populations when recruiting W2 course offerings and instructors, and we can also create writing pedagogy resources to help improve instruction for programs that currently teach a large number of W2 courses. Faculty Complement Tables: (pre-filled by Institutional Research) W1 Core Writing Faculty Teaching W1 Courses in AY10-11

Adjunct Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian 10 8 16 2

Instructor Gender Race/Ethnicity


12

M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian 1 0 1

Assistant Professor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian

0 1 1 Associate Professor

Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian

0 3 3 Professor


1 1 2 Distinguished Professor


0 0 * Core Writing Faculty includes any faculty member housed in the GENS program & school.

Faculty Across the Curriculum Teaching W1 Courses in AY10-11 Adjunct


4 2 6 Instructor


0 0 Assistant Professor


2 5 5 1 1 Associate Professor


2 3 3 1 1 Professor


1 1 1 1 Distinguished Professor


13


1 0 1

W2 Core Writing Faculty Teaching W2 Courses in AY10-11

Adjunct Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian 10 8 16 2

Instructor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian

1 0 1 Assistant Professor


0 1 1 Associate Professor


0 3 3 Professor


1 1 2 Distinguished Professor


0 0 * Core Writing Faculty includes any faculty member housed in the GENS program & school.

Faculty Across the Curriculum Teaching W2 Courses in AY10-11

Adjunct Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other 22 15 30 3 3 1

Instructor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other

0 0


14

Assistant Professor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other 16 21 29 1 1 6

Associate Professor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other 15 32 36 2 3 5 1

Professor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other 15 8 19 4

Distinguished Professor Gender Race/Ethnicity M F Caucasian Hispanic African American Asian Other

0 0 SOURCE: IR Faculty Access Database

Coordinator Comments about Faculty Activity: Learning Outcomes Assessment Table The list of scholarly work provided by Sedona is not accurate. First, it includes the work of all faculty members who have taught W courses who are not members of the Writing Program. Second, not all members of the Writing Program have reported their scholarly work to the Grants Office. Writing Program faculty members have been quite active in a wide variety of scholarly endeavors this year. The list of their scholarly achievements is provided here: Judy Copeland Honors: Finalist for the next volume of The Best American Spiritual Writing, edited by Philip Zaleski. Publications: “Louisville, 1953.” Alaska Quarterly Review 27.3 (Fall 2010), 141-152. Book Proposal: Since I’ve Been Gone: True Tales of Travelers Coming Home. A travel writing

anthology co-edited with Faith Adiele and Tim Bascom. Currently under review by Travelers’ Tales, Palo Alto, CA.

[Use this space to reflect on faculty complement, faculty retention and development, mentoring and recruitment, scholarly and creative activity, service and engagement, etc., if applicable.]


15

Readings/Presentations: Workshop Leader, “Adding Humor to First-Year Writing,” Student Success in Writing Conference, Georgia Southern University, Savannah, GA, February 2011. Moderator and Panelist, “An All You Can Eat Tourist Buffet: Three Women’s Travel

Horror Stories.” With Stockton students Brigid Sadorf and Brege Shinn. Southern Humanities Conference, Jacksonville, FL, February 2011.

Featured Reader, Summer Writers Institute, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, 2011, June 2011.

Presenter, “Geisha: Unmasking American Feminist Orientalist Fantasies,” Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies’ Series, RSC, April 2011. Service Related to Creative Nonfiction: Member, National Screening Committee in Creative Writing, U.S. Student Fulbright Program, December 2010 to present. Instructor, Creative Nonfiction Workshop, Summer Writers Institute, Washington University, St.

Louis, MO, 2011, June 2011. Instructor, “Telling True Tales” (a two-week memoir workshop for senior citizens), Stockton

Center on Successful Aging, Summer 2011. Organizer of annual Writing Program Showcase, RSC, Spring 2011. Contest Coordinator for 2010-2011 Mimi Schwartz Creative Nonfiction Award, RSC. Emari DiGiorgio Honors and Awards: Maud Dahme Award, presented by The New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education Finalist for 2011 Crab Orchard Series in Poetry First Book Award Runner-up for Poetry International’s 2011 Cavafy Prize (for poem “Calvin Pees on Iraq”) Finalist for 2010 Crab Orchard Series in Poetry First Book Award Finalist for 2010 Tupelo Press First Book Award Semi-finalist for 2010 Perugia Press Prize for a First or Second Book by a Woman Finalist for 2010 Wabash Prize for Poetry (for poem “Animals Among Us”) Finalist for 2010 Georgetown Review Contest (for poem “The Day My Grandmother Died”) Poetry Publications: “Bullets” accepted by Drunken Boat, forthcoming 2011-2012 “Calvin Pees on Iraq” accepted by Poetry International, forthcoming Spring 2012 “The Day My Grandmother Died” (finalist for annual prize) Georgetown Review, vol. 11, Spring 2010 “Letter” U.S. 1 Worksheets, vol. 55, April 2010 “Lonely Planet” So to Speak, Winter/Spring 2010 “Progress” Switched-On Gutenberg, vol. 15, 2010 Carra Hood Presentations If We Build It, Will They Learn?: Assessing Academic Program Efficacy in Times of Institutional


16

Change Middle States Commission on Higher Education 2011 Annual Conference, December 2011(Panel presentation with Jennifer Barr, Linda Feeney, and Diane Holtzman)

Is Escrito en Español Writing? Penn State Conference on Rhetoric and Composition, July 2011

How Does the Media Teach Liberal Arts? Association for Core Text Conference, April 2011

Research Instruction in First Year Writing/Composition Courses: Making Connections across the Curriculum, between Educational Institutions, and outside of School Writing Program Administrators Conference, July 2010

The Accidental Core Text Association for Core Texts Conference, April 2010

Publications Peyton Place: Unsettling Origins or the Narrative of Samuel Peyton as told by Grace Metalious

North Charleston, SC: Create Space, 2011 How Does the Media Teach Liberal Arts?

Proceedings of the Association for Core Text Conference 2011 Research Instruction in First Year Writing/Composition Courses: Making Connections across the

Curriculum, between Educational Institutions, and outside of School Proceedings of the Writing Program Administrators Conference 2010

The Accidental Core Text Proceedings of the Association for Core Texts Conference 2010

Ways of Research: The Status of the Traditional Research Paper Assignment in First-year Writing/Composition Courses (received an R & PD grant, summer 2008, to create the survey instrument for this project) Composition Forum, 22 Summer 2010 http://compositionforum.com/issue/22/ways-of-research.php

Grants The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey Research and Professional Development

Grant, Summer 2011 Heather Mc Govern Local Publications McGovern, H. “CLA 2009-2010: What Can We Learn?” Evidence: Program Assessment for

Continuous Improvement (newsletter at Stockton), Dec., 2010. McGovern, H. “Giving Our Transfer Students Due Credit: What the CLA Tells Us about

Transfer Students’ Critical Thinking and Writing Skills.” Evidence: Program Assessment for Continuous Improvement (newsletter at Stockton), Dec., 2010.

McGovern, H. “Program Assessment: Advice to Those Who Hesitate to Wade into the Waters.” Evidence: Program Assessment for Continuous Improvement (newsletter at Stockton), March, 2010.

Conference Presentations “Assessing Online Courses and Online Evaluation Systems: Using Student Evaluations to

http://compositionforum.com/issue/22/ways-of-research.php�


17

Compare Online to Traditional Courses and Comparing Online and Paper Student Evaluations.” Co-Presenter Dennis Fotia. Assessment Institute Conference, Indianapolis, IN, Oct. 2010. Refereed Conference.

“Using Student Evaluations to Compare Online to Traditional Courses and Comparing Online and Paper Student Evaluation (at Stockton)” Co-Presenter, Dennis Fotia. Day of Scholarship, The Richard Stockton College of NJ, March, 2011.

“Using Fiction and Nonfiction by Barbara Kingsolver to Help Students Think Across Disciplines.” SFT Summer Workshop, 2010.

Richard Trama Conference Presentations Paper for the Association of Graduate Liberal Studies, conference at Georgetown University, 11

June 2011 Project with five RSC students to culminate in the presentation of a collection of thirteen essays to the Man Booker Management Committee, London, England, Summer 2011.

Roundtable discussion participant on "Evaluating Writing Portfolios" and "The Future of Literary Studies" for the New Jersey College English Association, Seton Hall University, October 2010.

Program Learning Outcomes Assessment Summary for 2010-11: The Writing Program has been rotating its course assessment of first-year writing courses. In 2008-2009, the Program assessed College Writing and in 2009-2010, the Program assessed Rhetoric and Composition. In fall 2009, the Program developed a rubric for Argument and Persuasion and tested a small pilot. The rubric was revised and a second, larger pilot was tested in spring 2010. This spring the program read 37 portfolios. Objectives: Measure(s) Result(s) Interpretation(s) Action(s) 1. Argument & Persuasion Learning Objectives

Portfolio review See below See below See below

2. Create group to help design and implement W2 assessment

Re-instate Writing Advisory Committee

Successful The committee will help design and implement W2 assessment

Continue work in fall 2011 and spring 2012.

Coordinator Comments about Learning Outcomes Assessment: Items to celebrate

[Use this space to elaborate on results, interpretations and the actions your program has taken or plans to take, based on these assessment results.]


18

Instructors did a good job of asking students to write incorporating an assigned reading and to find sources. Students did well with most quality of writing goals and many goals related to understanding argument. Items to work on Several objectives were expanded and/or revised since the last pilot, and these goals were not met with a high percentage rate. The Writing Program and the instructors who teach this course should discuss if these goals are appropriate for the course, and if so, how to better prepare the students to demonstrate these skills in their portfolios. Students could do more work or provide samples in their portfolios that show their ability to evaluate sources and to properly use either MLA or APA citation formats and their understanding of ethos, kairos, and rhetorical fallacies. The Writing Program will revisit these goals and meet with instructors to modify the rubric before the next round of portfolio assessment. Rubric section one, variety of writing In the first section of course goals, which reflect the variety of writing that we assigned students, results were as follows: 1) Incorporates at least one assigned reading: 89%, 97% agreement. Good news. 2) Addresses at least two audiences (the instructor and/or classmates and someone else): 49%,

83% agreement. This section needs work. Students need to clarify what they are including in their portfolios, and instructors need to communicate with their students about what to put in their portfolios and/or create opportunities for students to address multiple audiences.

3) Writing or other evidence shows students can find sources: 80%, 91% agreement. Good news.

4) Writing or other evidence shows students can evaluate sources: 57%, 80% agreement. Students need to provide evidence in their portfolios.

Numbers should be high in this first section. If assignments ask students to complete these kinds of writing and include them in their portfolios, most student portfolios should show them. Because only 49% and 57% of students are meeting goals two and four, the Writing Program should revisit these goals and see how it can help instructors who are teaching Argument and Persuasion reach them. Rubric section two, quality of writing In the second section of course goals, which reflect the quality of the writing that students do, results were as follows:

1) At least one essay in APA or MLA format: 86%, 91% agreement. Good news. 2) Composes at least two essays with a debatable thesis: 66%, 74% agreement. The

Program revised this goal. During the pilots, we had only asked for evidence of at least one essay with a debatable, non-obvious thesis. We need to work on the percentage of students meeting this goal and we need to do more norming here.

3) At least one essay in which the thesis is well supported: 91%, 91% agreement. Good news.


19

4) At least one essay with an introduction that engages readers and logically anticipates the topic of the essay 94%, 97% agreement. Good news.

5) At least one essay with a conclusion other than summary: 69%, 69% agreement. Though we’d like more students to be able to demonstrate this skill, we also need to do more norming here.

6) Joins most paragraphs cohesively with logical transitions: 83%, 86% agreement. Good news.

7) Organizes one paper so that it indicates a logical relationship of ideas without diversions or repetitions: 91%, 91% agreement. Good news.

8) Unifies most paragraphs: 89%, 89% agreement. Good news. 9) Follows the conventions of Standard English grammar and punctuation so that a typical

reader would not be distracted by errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, and/or punctuation: 86%, 86% agreement. Good news.

10) Properly introduces direct quotations: 51%, 89% agreement. Goals 10-15 were added to this assessment. We used to ask two questions about source use and integration. This breakdown indicates that we need to communicate with instructors about all of these goals.

11) Properly punctuates direct quotations: 63%, 94% agreement. 12) Properly uses in-text citations in APA or MLA format with quotations: 46%, 71%

agreement. We need to do more norming. 13) Properly uses in-text citations in APA or MLA format when paraphrasing: 40%, 66%

agreement. We need to do more norming. 14) Properly uses a reference page in APA or MLA format: 60%, 74% agreement. We need

to do more norming. 15) Uses a balance of quotations and paraphrases: 54%, 74% agreement. We need to do more

norming. Rubric section three, understanding of argument 1) Includes evidence that the student understands logos (logical appeals): 91%, 94%

agreement. Good news. 2) Includes evidence that shows that the student understands pathos (emotional appeals):

80%, 83% agreement. Good news. 3) Includes evidence that shows that the student understands ethos (appeals to credibility):

74%, 77% agreement. Need to do more norming here. 4) Includes evidence that shows that the student understands kairos (the context of an

argument, particularly regarding timing—see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos): 51%, 60% agreement. We need to communicate with instructors on this goal and do more norming.

5) Includes evidence that the student understands the structure of an argument, e.g., by outlining, labeling parts of, or rhetorically analyzing an argument: 60%, 80% agreement. We need to communicate with instructors on this goal.

6) Includes evidence that the student knows and can identify at least 5 rhetorical fallacies: 51%, 86% agreement. We need to communicate with instructors on this goal.

7) Includes evidence that the student can understand and address multiple sides of an argument—e.g., by outlining more than one side, by stating and addressing counterarguments in a paper, etc: 74%, 83% agreement. It’s unclear if students didn’t


20

include appropriate assignments that demonstrated this goal, or if they didn’t have an opportunity to meet this goal.

Coordinator’s Annual Activity Plans for 2011-12: GOALS As part of the process of developing its Program Review, the Writing Program has laid out the following goals:

I. Continue efforts to re-invigorate Writing-Across-the-Curriculum program a. Use Writing Advisory Committee to increase faculty participation across the

curriculum b. Plan and initiate five-year review of existing W-designated courses c. Continue Writing Program Appetizer Series to reach a larger number of faculty

than the summer Writing Institute d. Initiate formal Writing Program workshop/lecture series (see small-scale

professional development section of budget) e. Continue to encourage new faculty to teach W-designated courses f. Build separate Writing Program website g. Update the Writing Program’s Yellow Pages and make it available electronically

II. Follow through on assessment initiatives and curriculum review a. Continue assessment of first-year courses b. Develop direct assessment strategies for W2 c. Design and implement adjunct review process

III. Continue efforts to develop writing community among students and faculty a. Pilot teaching assistant program for BASK 1101 b. Continue to cooperate with LITT in the Visiting Writers Series c. Increase the publicity of and participation in student readings d. Expand publication advice to students

BUDGET The Writing Program requests a budget to help in six areas:

I. Program Assessment: College Writing II. Large-scale professional development for writing instruction III. Small-scale professional development for writing instruction IV. Writing Program Retreat V. Writing Program Showcase VI. Writing Program Punctuation & Citation Workshops

The program’s total requests are for $13, 880. I. Program Assessment:

[Use this space to describe anticipated initiatives, goals, resource needs, unique budget items for the year ahead and, if applicable, longer term plans beyond the upcoming year.]


21

Since we have revised the College Writing assessment instrument, we will need to run a pilot in 2011-2012. We’ll need the following resources to implement assessment. I’ve included $50.00 a person for a half-day of assessment. Table I. Budget Request for Argument and Persuasion Assessment

Item Number of requests

Cost per item Final estimated cost

Portfolio evaluation one half-day x 3, not counting full-time faculty or the program coordinator

$50.00 $150.00

Lunch 8 people; we can try to plan this for the morning of the first-year seminar group meeting and join them for lunch to save costs and create community connections

$10.00 $80.00

Total $230.00

II. Large-scale professional development for writing instruction One way to reinvigorate W2 courses at Stockton—and to encourage more information literacy development and analytical skill development in these courses—is to continue to offer the Writing Institute. The Institute is able to accommodate 10-12 people over 3 days in the summer. Because the Institute is a workshop environment, it is beneficial to keep the number of participants limited to 12; however, determining who should attend (adjunct versus full-time faculty, newer versus veteran faculty, etc) is a challenging task when all of the applicants would benefit from participation. This past spring, the Institute could not serve the 24 interested and qualified applicants. I’d like to continue the current summer Writing Institute model, but I’d like to offer it in two separate sessions. Instead of sacrificing the integrity of a program that has proven to be beneficial by simply increasing the number of participants, running two sessions would double the number of faculty members who have an opportunity to develop their courses and learn about best practices. I understand that the following request is quite substantial, but since the Program and the College is committed to the W2 curriculum, it is essential to fund projects like this. As noted in our


22

recent Program Review, the Writing Program would like to integrate more of the College’s Strategic Themes into its curriculum if the College helps provide the infrastructure to make that happen.

Table II. Budget Request for the Writing Institute Item Number of

requests Cost per item Final estimated

cost Stipends 24 participating faculty,

coordinator, Peg $400.00 10,400.00

Breakfast and lunch 25 $1200 Total $11,600.00 III. Small-scale professional development for writing instruction We need to provide more professional development opportunities for the adjuncts we hire to teach our first-year W1 courses and to support professional development for faculty across the curriculum who are teaching writing. Though the Writing Program Appetizer Series provides a sampling of this, the Writing Program would like to initiate a formal series of workshops. Ideally, four workshop leaders (2 fall and 2 spring) will be selected based on the quality and focus of their proposals and will lead a 2-hour professional development activity related to teaching writing. If possible, the Writing Program would align each of these sessions with one of the College’s four strategic themes. Leaders will each receive $200.00 and part-time faculty teaching W courses in the term in which they are attending or scheduled to teach them in the next semester will each receive $30.00. This will be a total of about $1500, depending upon attendance by part-time faculty. The workshops would (or at least some of them would) also be open to full-time faculty across the curriculum. IV. Writing Program Retreat For one day of strategic planning. A full day meeting will help us to continue assessment, to develop and initiate strategies for reinvigorating our W2 curriculum, and to make the changes recommended by the external evaluator. For breakfast and lunch for nine people, $300.00. V. Writing Program Showcase Refreshments for participating faculty members and students, $100.00. VI. Writing Program Punctuation & Citation Workshops Refreshments for participating faculty members and students, $150.00 (2 workshops, $75 for each).


23

SUMMARY OF FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW MEETING

TO:

FROM: HARVEY KESSELMAN

EMARI DIGIORGIO

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF WRITING PROGRAM FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW MEETING

DATE: JULY 14TH, 2010

Dear Emari:

CC: J. COLIJN, M. LOWENSTEIN, C. KEENAN, P. BARATTA

It was a pleasure to meet with you on July 7th to discuss the five-year program review document for the Writing Program. Your commitment to this important process is highly regarded and appreciated. This memo serves as a summary of our discussion, including the action steps expected to be completed. Please use your annual coordinator reports to document your progress on the work outlined below. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact your Dean or my liaison, Peter Baratta, for more information. Action Items Item Lead Status/Notes 2020 1. Investigate professional development & incentive

opportunities to help faculty become more comfortable teaching W2 courses.

• Ongoing: Continue Writing Appetizer Series • Fall 2011 & Spring 2012: Plan writing/speaker

workshop series • Spring & Summer 2012: Expand Summer Writing

Institute to two sessions

E. DiGiorgio Summary updates will be provided to GENS Dean and Provost Office.

ER1

2. Initiate review of W2 courses, including a possible cross-campus discussion of what a W2 course actually means,

E. DiGiorgio See notes for Items 3 & 4. IP1

3. Develop proposal to engage Writing Advisory Committee members to assist with development activities (including assuming roles as writing monitors).

E. DiGiorgio Fall 2011: meet with Writing Advisory Committee to discuss writing monitor roles.

ER3

4. Research and design draft templates for W2 assessment rubrics.

• Fall 2011: Research similar Writing Across the Curriculum programs

• Spring 2012: Share research with Writing Advisory Committee and other key stakeholders

• Fall 2012: Institute volunteer pilot of W2 assessment rubrics

• Spring 2013: Institute larger pilot of W2


IP1


24

assessment rubrics

5. Develop pilot evaluation process for adjunct instructors. • Fall 2011: Develop instrument procedure • Spring 2012: Institute small pilot evaluation

process • Fall 2012: Institute larger pilot evaluation process


ER1

Information/Discussion Items Item Lead Status/Notes 2020 1. Some concerns exist regarding a “disconnect” between

what W2 faculty indicate they are teaching vs. what is occurring in the classroom.

CLA results and in-house surveys report this disconnect.

2. Data indicate that W2 instructors are less likely to choose the writing IDEA objective vs. overall faculty (E. DiGiorgio noted the writing objective is mandated for W1 courses).

In Spring 2011, The Writing Advisory Committee decided to require all W2 designations to select “Important” or “Essential” for the IDEA objective on developing written/oral communication skills.

3. E. DiGiorgio expressed concern about the difficulty of recruiting faculty for W2 courses. Reasons include:

• When assessment became an issue, there was a general backlash from faculty, many of whom were used to “self designating” a W2 course and then being left alone.

• Some faculty are concerned about over-extending themselves.

• Some faculty are “nervous” about teaching a W2 course.

By re-instating the Writing Advisory Committee and by creating more professional development opportunities, the Writing Program hopes to motivate and incentivize faculty to teach W2 courses.

4. Writing Program faculty are concerned about the high percentage (80-90%) of first-year writing courses being taught by adjunct faculty. E. DiGiorgio believes that, if all seven full-time faculty members were able to teach all three of their fall courses as first-year writing courses (which is not possible for a variety of reasons, including course releases), the Program would still need adjunct faculty to provide 21 sections of first-year writing.

5. E. DiGiorgio believes the Writing Program should have access to a sustainable and predictable budget, supported by Dean Colijn and Provost Kesselman.

It is anticipated that a new method will be implemented for the funding of minor programs, with the GENS Dean maintaining budget authority.


25

Process for piloting the Template:

1. Institutional Research completes the data charts by May 31; sends to Deans 2. Grants Office assists in providing Sedona appendices (if available; Scholarly

Reports if Sedona is not yet available) (on track for May 31?) 3. Deans forward the data laden template to Program Coordinators 4. Program Coordinators add their reflections and any appendices by June 30 5. Program Coordinators send report to appropriate Deans. 6. Deans send copies to Provost’s Office and IR for aggregate reporting during pilot

year (this will be manual during July-August 2011) In 2011-12, the template will be replaced with an online form that collects and stores all data centrally, fields from which Grants, Provost, Deans, and Institutional Research Offices could assemble key reports:

a. Annual Directors Report b. Aggregate Learning Outcomes Report c. Aggregate Scholarly Activity Report d. President’s Report to the Board of Trustees

Deans will then have more of a “School-wide Dashboard” of analytic views and Comments from the Dean: • I have little to add to the writing program summary, developed after the past five

year review because this is a very wide-ranging and thorough summary. However, I want to add to comments:

• The W2 Assessment should probably focus primarily on analytical writing given our CLA survey results.

• New incentives for good student writing (e.g., the book resulting from the “True Blood” course, and the books produced by Carra Hood’s class last year) should be brought to the attention of a wider faculty audience.

prepared by emari digiorgio 27 june 2011 goals from...

Documents