CCC Proposal for a new Writing Requirement in the Core 9.16.20

Core Curriculum Committee Proposal for a New Core Writing Requirement The CCC requests Faculty Senate consideration (first reading, Oct 2020, second reading and motion, Nov 2020 meeting) of a new writing requirement, Writing, Reading, and Inquiry, effective date fall 2021 This requirement will help our students become more versatile, purposeful, clear, and reflective writers The proposed requirement involves components at three levels—first semester, second semester, and a third level that students will complete at variable times in their later undergraduate career, depending on major and course of study This work is in direct response to concerns about student writing expressed by faculty across the institution This work also is based on assessment of existing Core requirements, state-wide efforts to improve writing curricula, and the CCC’s careful study of national models of writing requirements in general education If this proposal moves forward, it will involve elimination of EYE and of the Core Electives (previously the Thematic Cluster), to simplify the curriculum and to create space for a more sequenced writing requirement at three levels See figure I below The learning outcomes for the proposed new writing requirement are included, as is a diagram(figure 1) depicting the proposed changes, and an assessment rubric The proposal provides background and rationale for the proposed change, and an implementation plan that includes discussion of instructional resources and capacity, timelines, transfer, credit hour implications, implications for other programs, and a brief assessment plan Background: Beginning in Dec 2018, the CCC began considering possible changes to the college writing requirement in the Core The impetus for this work came from several sources: Assessment: Since 2011, the CCC has monitored assessment data related to the Core in general, and for EYE and College Writing specifically In 2018, they returned to the EYE data in earnest, reviewing both the annual EYE Assessment data, more recent survey data, and focus group feedback from EYE instructors and students In response to the assessment data, the CCC began revising the EYE outcomes This work continued through spring 2019, while the CCC was simultaneously exploring a proposal for a revised writing requirement Reconsideration of the EYE and the College Writing outcomes occurred as side-by-side processes, in active collaboration with colleagues in English The result of this work was a decision to move beyond modification of outcomes to a broader reenvisioning of what first year students need most, both in the first year, and beyond, to succeed in subsequent courses The decision was made to propose a new writing requirement that would retain the most important elements of EYE (e.g., collaboration with others and engagement with diverse viewpoints), while refocusing the curriculum on writing, reading, and inquiry as a central and essential skills Writing Program Administrators’ and English Writing Committee proposal: In Dec 2018, Professor Jessica Ouellette, USM’s Director of Writing Programs, presented a proposal to the CCC based on the work of the UMS Writing Program Administrators’ Program Innovation Grant, and the recommendations of the English Department Writing Committee This proposal called for USM to adopt a more comprehensive college writing requirement, to better align our students’ writing experiences with national standards and practices, and with the requirements at all other UMS campuses, all of which (except for USM) require at least two semesters of writing instruction Writing Center: During this time frame, the Provost charged a committee to create a proposal for a Writing Center at USM, another parallel activity reflecting institutional priorities with which this proposal aligns Faculty Feedback: Problems with student writing have been a concern expressed repeatedly to CCC members by faculty in their home colleges and departments, and by visitors to the committee’s meetings More formally, the CCC heard concerns from faculty about student writing at open meetings held in 2018 and 2019, at which attendees were invited to ask questions about and make recommendations about the Core Student writing was on the top of the list of questions and concerns Second on the list were concerns about the complexities of the Core Electives Third on the list were concerns about the effectiveness of EYE Proposed changes: Writing, Reading and Inquiry Level I: ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL 100, HON 100, RSP 100 Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Level 2: ENG 102 and appropriate ESL, HON, RSP if desired by those programs Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Level 3: Advanced writing courses in the majors/minors and other programs (see list of prospective courses on pages 9-10) Students will satisfy level by successfully completing an approved course in their major, or in another program, either inside or outside their college The new writing requirement will involve sequenced courses at three levels, with shared learning outcomes across all three levels, and additional, more advanced outcomes at the third level The first level will include and build upon our existing College Writing requirement and courses (ENG 100, ENG 101, HON 100, RSP 100, ESL 100) The first level of the requirement will be met through these existing courses, with modified learning outcomes (see below) The second level will involve the creation of new courses addressing the common outcomes at a higher level (see assessment rubric) The English department has confirmed interest (and capacity) in developing a second level course with an ENG prefix to satisfy the requirement HON, RSP and ESL will also be invited to develop a second level of Writing, Reading and Inquiry if they determine it is in their students’ interest for them to so The third level will primarily involve existing writing-related courses in the majors and other programs (see the list of prospective courses on pages 8-9) and will likely also include revitalization of at least some of our former “W” writing intensive courses The capacity analysis and implementation plan later in this document provide more details on the issues of course offerings As Figure depicts, the requirement alters existing sequencing and prerequisites in the Core Specifically, students will have to complete level prior to level 2; students will still be able to complete level concurrently with CE, CI, SE, SCA, Diversity, and International Students will have to complete level prior to EISRC The reason for this sequencing is to ensure student readiness for the next level in the writing sequence, and to address historical problems with students being unevenly prepared for EISRC, which has had at best highly variable prerequisites Implications of this altered sequencing are discussed further in the section on implications for other programs Requirement Description and Learning Outcomes Writing, Reading, and Inquiry In Writing, Reading, and Inquiry you will develop and adapt your existing skills to meet the demands of collegiate study and of new writing situations and diverse audiences You will become a rhetorically versatile and purposeful reader and writer, harnessing the power of language as a means to discover and cultivate ideas and to communicate clearly, productively, and ethically within academic, workplace, and civic communities Level 1, 2, and Outcomes Students will: Recognize and write for a variety of rhetorical situations and contexts, particularly academic ones, by attending to such factors as purpose, audience, genre, mode, and textual conventions Read actively and critically for a variety of analytical and rhetorical purposes Incorporate conventional usages of grammar, syntax, and style in relation to your rhetorical situation Construct logical, thesis-driven arguments involving interpretation, analysis, critique, and synthesis Re-see and extend your thinking and writing through processes such as reading, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, editing, designing, and redesigning Discover and reconsider your ideas and positions through engagement with others and exposure to diverse perspectives and historical and cultural contexts Adhere to shared standards for academic integrity and intellectual property through informed source evaluation and correct documentation Articulate the ongoing development of your own writing processes and strategies and their relationship to your personal values, academic growth, and life goals Level outcomes: Students will: Articulate and use discipline-specific writing practices for a variety of academic and professional rhetorical situations Use discipline-specific research practices in the writing process Critically evaluate the credibility of sources and evidence used to support your writing Figure I: Diagram of proposed changes: Timeline and process of the CCC’s work: As noted above, the Core Curriculum Committee’s review and revision of the College Writing requirement was influenced by several calls to action including ● the publication of revised first-year composition outcomes by UMS Writing Program Administrators, ● a proposal to develop a six-credit writing requirement brought to the CCC by the USM English Department Writing Committee, ● Recommendations from the National Council of Writing Program Administrators, and ● faculty observations of significant gaps in students’ writing abilities Additionally, assessment data and student and faculty feedback have indicated that the outcomes of the Entry-Year Experience (EYE) requirement have not been achieved equally by all students The CCC began to re-examine the purpose of these Core requirements by identifying common goals represented in EYE and College Writing requirement outcomes The committee also looked at existing writing outcomes embedded in Core requirements In this process, the committee noted gaps in Core Curriculum outcomes in areas such as writing, skills of analysis, critical thinking, textual interpretation, and digital literacy While deliberating the variety of possible modified structures through which students could achieve the identified critical learning, the committee began to merge EYE and College Writing outcomes They eliminated duplicative outcomes and added language to emphasize skills and knowledge related to writing conventions, composing processes, research practices, rhetorical awareness, and critical reading Committee members agreed on the importance of writing outcomes being scaffolded across students’ undergraduate careers to reinforce skills and to incorporate discipline-specific writing and research practices Requirements at Other Institutions The CCC studied examples of writing and first-year seminar requirement outcomes and delivery models at over 20 higher education institutions, including: ● Duke University: three-component requirement, Writing 101 requirement - one course focused on substantial engagement in the writing process, reading, evaluation of and response to peer arguments/points of view, two writing intensive courses ● Washington College: 4-component Writing Sequence - W1 First Year Seminar, W2 Process of Writing, W3 Writing in the Discipline, and W4 Capstone ● Whittier College: three-component writing requirement, First Year Writing Seminar - 3credit course, taught by faculty across disciplines, writing intensive courses, and a capstone paper in the major ● University of Colorado, Denver: Two-component writing requirement ● University of North Carolina, Wilmington: two component writing requirement, and a First-Year Seminar focused on developing information literacy, critical thinking and inquiry, thoughtful expression ● Agnes Scott College: First-Year Seminar ENG 110: The Craft of Writing - a writing course taught using literature as the context; course sections are diverse in topic areas ● Portland State University: Freshman Inquiry Course ● SUNY Albany: two semester requirement in Writing and Critical Inquiry ● Southern Connecticut State University: 4-level writing requirement; Analysis of Writing Goals - rubric of writing goals across the curriculum ● Eastern Kentucky University: Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric and Research, Writing, and Rhetoric, two semester writing requirement The CCC’s review of these and other models led to the decision to adopt a level/3 component model for USM This model is consistent with the developmental nature of our Core, which spans first year to senior year, and the model addresses the need for writing outcomes to be scaffolded across the students academic career Implementation timeline: The CCC recommends implementation of the new requirement in fall 2021, effective for students with a fall 2021 admission term The new requirements will not apply to continuing students, and students who change their major after fall 2021 can retain their earlier Core requirement term The English department anticipates sufficient instructional capacity to meet this timeline This timeline will allow sufficient time to identify and prepare level three courses for students entering in fall 2021, both first time and transfer The CCC recognizes that a range of significant factors related to the pandemic must shape consideration of this timeline If necessary in response to these conditions, the CCC recommends careful consideration of a possible fall 2022 implementation Credit hour implications: The proposed curriculum change reduces net Core Curriculum credit hour totals, but remains in compliance with accreditation requirements The credit hour reduction (6) This reduction is achieved through the elimination of EYE (3 credits), and elimination of the Core Electives (9 credits) which had no clear learning outcomes associated with them The credit hour implications of the proposed change for individual majors vary by program Programs for which the proposed change will pose challenges are discussed further below The maximum number of credits required to complete the USM Core will be 40, assuming a student takes a single course for every requirement, with no overlaps Most students take advantage of opportunities for overlaps, thus reducing the overall number of credits they take to complete all Core requirements A forty hour general education is consistent with NECHE requirements for general education Implications for other programs and student progress in the majors: Some highly sequenced and credit-intensive majors will experience challenges if this proposal is approved, especially as they reconfigure the 4-year advising plans for their majors However, members of the CCC examined a range of major advising plans and found that with some significant exceptions (e.g., MUE and EGN) a first and second semester writing sequence could be accommodated by shifting when students complete another Core requirement (e.g SCA, etc.) that doesn’t have to be taken in the first year For EGN, this challenge may be mitigated by the possibility that an already required course in the major, ITP 210, could satisfy level For MUE, this challenge might be similarly mitigated by an in-major offering For other programs, the proposed change could pose sequencing related delays for their majors, especially in instances (e.g., ARH 111 and 112, ITP 210) which currently use ENG 100 as a hard prerequisite (a more strict structure than existing Core policies, which allow a corequisite structure between College Writing and other Core requirements) These programs may not wish to allow a concurrent enrollment approach to the first level course If that is the case, degree progress may be delayed for students in those programs if the new writing requirement is implemented The CCC is still in the process of gathering feedback from programs about the proposal At two open CCC meetings held in 2019-2020, and another on Sept 25, 2020, responses from faculty in attendance were generally positive The proposal has the support of the English Department, and appropriately reflects that program’s input, both through its representatives on the CCC, and through broader dialog between the program and the CCC throughout the past two years Indeed, English has already begun to implement the new writing outcomes in ENG 100 Russell Scholars supports the proposal Other affected programs, such as Honors, have expressed general support for greater attention to student writing, but have expressed concerns about the elimination of EYE, and have indicated that they may wish to pursue a different approach for students in their program, in particular possibly retaining an anti-racism focused first-year seminar for HON students Course naming conventions: To capture the essence of the new requirements, the CCC adopted the requirement name of Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Courses in each of these areas will retain conventional subject prefix and number conventions already in use by the University That is, the requirement will not involve a new non-departmental prefix The CCC does recommend adoption of new course titles, Writing, Reading and Inquiry I for level courses, and Writing, Reading and Inquiry for level courses Specifically, level will consist of our existing College Writing courses, ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL 100, HON 100 and RSP 100, with modified learning outcomes Level will require the development of new courses, ENG 102, and, as occurred with the creation of College Writing, ESOL, HON and RSP may wish to collaborate with English on offerings of their own level courses Level three courses will, like our existing Ethical Inquiry courses, retain their existing subject prefixes, numbers, and course titles, and will have a level three Core requirement designation attached to them for class search and degree progress report purposes Seats and Sections: Level 1: We currently offer an average of 40 sections and 800 seats of College Writing, with a cap of 20 (ENG 100, ENG 101, ESL 100, HON 100, RSP 100) every fall We offer an average of 10 sections and 200 seats every spring We will need to maintain these offerings Level 2: To implement the second level of the requirement, we must effectively double our current offerings The estimates are based on most recent data on fall and spring College Writing enrollments Fall: retain 40 sections and 800 seats of College Writing; offer 10 sections and 200 seats of level courses Spring: retain 10 sections and 200 seats of College Writing, and offer 40 sections and 800 seats of level courses Level 3: Because level courses will exist across the curriculum, and because students will not complete those courses in large cohorts (as they have historically completed ENG 100, and as they will complete the new level and level requirements) planning the necessary sections and seats for level courses is much more complex However, we can predict needs based on offering and enrollment patterns for our existing EISRC (Ethical Inquiry) requirement, which students also complete through courses from across the university, and at various times in their careers (but normally no earlier than formal second semester sophomore status as defined by credit hours) As is the case with Ethical Inquiry, students will satisfy the level writing requirement through approved course(s) in their major, or approved courses offered by other programs, either inside or outside their college On average, we offer 30 EISRC sections each semester Each semester those courses run at approximately 65% capacity This suggests that for level three we could meet student enrollment needs (and ensure degree progress) by offering roughly 20-25 such courses each semester Existing capacity at level three includes the following possible courses already on offer (including previous “W” courses) This list is for illustrative purposes, and does not represent approved courses confirmed by the offering department Courses adopted as level courses must ultimately be approved by both the offering department, and the CCC Course approval will follow the usual department, college, and CCC curriculum approval processes BIO 306 Developmental Bio and lab BIO 312/282 Microbiology and Lab BIO 353 Vertebrate Zoology BIO 405/406 Animal Behavior and Lab CMS 201 Introduction to Public Relations CMS 202 Writing for Popular Media CMS 215 Journalism Reporting and Writing CMS 242 Communication and Social Media CMS 274 Writing for the Media CMS 302 Writing the Feature Story CMS 305 Writing Opinion: Editorials and Columns CMS 315 Broadcast Newswriting EGN 210 Technical Writing ENG 204 Professional Writing ENG 205 Sentence Style ENG 307 Topics in Professional Writing ENG 309 Newswriting ENG 310 Topics in Journalism ENG 337 Studies in Rhetoric: Writing, Rhetoric, and Emerging Technologies ENG 409 Internship in Professional Writing ESP 401 Environmental Impact Assessment ESP 421 Natural Resources Policy HON 215 Thinking in Honors HTY 200 Reference, Research, and Report Writing ITP 210 Technical Writing LIN 313 Syntax LOS 210 Creative Critical Inquiry LOS 299 Writing in the Major NUR 321 Health Related Research PSY 371 History and Systems of Psychology SBS 370 Toward a Global Ethics SOC 210 Critical Thinking about Social Issues Instructional capacity: Capacity for the first level of the requirement is met through existing resources and offerings Based on the seats/section estimates for ENG 102 above, we can anticipate having to roughly double existing instructional capacity to offer sufficient sections of ENG 102 As noted below, this increased instructional demand will be met in part by shifting resources previously dedicated to EYE In addition, it is expected that full-time ENG faculty will also teach ENG 100 and ENG 102 in-load to partially offset the instructional costs associated with additional part-time contracts needed to staff ENG 102 Financial Resources: All curriculum proposals must ultimately be reviewed by the Provost, who must then determine whether and how to allocate the financial resources necessary to implement the desired curriculum It currently costs USM approximately $60,000/AY to offer EYE We offer approximately 40 EYE, HON 101, and RSP 103 sections each fall and 10 sections each spring, staffed largely through part-time faculty, contracts for whom are paid out of the 10 Core budget, the HON budget, the RSP budget, the EGN budget (for EYE 112) and USM’s overall PT budget A cautious estimate is that the new level requirement will involve comparable costs It is possible that level will cost less than EYE, since (based on review of curricula at other institutions) more students will transfer in a second writing course than transfer in an EYE course (or receive a transfer EYE waiver with 24 or more credits on admission) To offset part of this estimated cost, the entire budget for EYE courses ($33,000), currently allocated within the broader Core Curriculum budget, could be dedicated to the new writing requirement The Provost will be asked to dedicate resources to cover the remaining costs, and has indicated that reallocation of existing resources could be considered for this Level courses, such as the possible prospects identified above, are most likely to be taught by full-time faculty, in-load Staffing level three courses is therefore expected to have less budgetary impact than will staffing level courses However, all instruction involves costs Programs dedicating faculty teaching load to level three courses may need to assign responsibility for other courses to other instructors, including part-time faculty, with the associated contract costs These costs are difficult to estimate at this time When EYE was implemented in 2009, the cost of back-filling other courses when FT faculty taught EYE in-load were low For the first years of the EYE requirement, many programs were happy to get the guaranteed SCH generated when their FT faculty taught EYE, and to assign these instructors’ other major courses to other faculty and to manage them through rotation in-load, across FT faculty It is hoped that programs will be excited and interested to include existing and new courses at level 3, taught in-load It is also possible that level will create opportunities for interdisciplinary and collaborative new course design across units with shared writing news and goals In addition, we will need to dedicate existing faculty expertise and allocate new or reallocate existing resources to support faculty development for writing instruction, especially for the development and offering of level courses The Provost will need to address this cost of the new curriculum as well Transfer: Existing Block Transfer, Associates Degree Core Waiver, and Articulation agreements will remain in effect and will not be altered This decision is based on careful review of the alignment of these transfer policies with the proposed new requirements All existing transfer rules for ENG 100 will remain in effect and will not be altered AP and CLEP exams will continue to satisfy ENG 100 as they always have Since numerous other colleges and universities offer multi-level writing requirements, transfer equivalents for the second and third levels will be identified Transfer Affairs has already begun to compile a list of such courses Maintenance of existing transfer agreements and rules is justified on several grounds: The new requirement will actually bring USM into better alignment with the and level writing 11 requirements in effect at all other UMS campuses The Associates Degree Core Waiver applies to associates degrees in liberal studies, the vast majority of which involve at least a two course writing requirement Fifty percent (17) of our 34 Articulation Agreements already require a second writing course at the community college level of the agreement; we will assess the outcomes of students in the other 17 agreements to determine whether adjustments to the agreements themselves might be needed to ensure equitable learning experiences The first level requirement will be waived for students who transfer 60 or more credit hours but not have a comparable transfer course The second level course will be waived for students who transfer 90 or more credit hours but not have a comparable transfer course The third level requirement will not be waived based on transfer credit status, but appropriate transfer equivalent courses will be identified, as is always the case for all Core requirements These transfer rules strike the appropriate balance between ensuring equitable learning experiences for native and transfer students, ensuring degree integrity, and facilitating degree completion for the significant proportion of our transfer students who transfer large numbers of credits without an associate’s degree in hand, and often without satisfying all of their general education requirements Advising: In 2019, the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs shared the CCC’s plan for this proposal with USM’s Professional Advising Staff Advising staff were generally positive about the proposal, and shared questions (e.g., regarding transfer, sequencing, prerequisites, etc.) which informed the CCC’s curriculum design as reflected in this proposal In addition, a subset of CCC members reviewed year plans for a range of majors, focusing in particular on high-credit and highly sequenced majors As discussed above in the section on implications for other programs, this preview of advising worksheets revealed areas where the proposed curriculum will require careful advising to ensure student completion of Core and major requirements in the most efficient and timely manner possible The CCC is confident that advising in relation to the proposed sequenced writing requirement will be much simpler and more straightforward than has been advising in relation to the Core electives Assessment: In developing an initial assessment plan for the proposed writing requirement, the CCC reviewed numerous examples of broad assessment strategies and of specific writing rubrics used by other institutions Some institutions have developed rubrics specific to their requirement outcomes while others use the AAC&U’s Value Rubric for Written Communication Based on their research, the CCC developed a rubric designed to guide assessment across the 12 three levels of the proposed requirement More detailed information on sources used in the creation of this rubric is provided below The CCC will assess student achievement of the Writing, Reading, and Inquiry Outcomes, as they have assessed student achievement of all Core outcomes, using a variety of assessment tools The CCC developed the rubric below to illustrate achievement of the outcomes at the three levels, and to guide assessment planning going forward Assessment Rubric for Level 1, 2, and outcomes This rubric describes student achievement of the outcomes across the three requirement levels It may be used to design rubrics for assignment grading, but it is not itself an assignment rubric Descriptors at each level are illustrative, not prescriptive Outcome Novice (level 1) Developing (level 2) Accomplished (level 3) Recognize and write for a variety of rhetorical situations and contexts, particularly academic ones, by attending to such factors as purpose, audience, genre, mode, and textual conventions Demonstrates an effort to attend to context, audience, purpose, and to the writing tasks(s) Demonstrates consistent consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the writing task(s) Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the writing task(s) and that focuses all elements of the work 13 Read actively and critically for a variety of analytical and rhetorical purposes Provides limited and sometimes inaccurate or irrelevant analysis of the parts or aspects of the text that contribute to understanding the purpose of the text Provides mostly accurate and relevant analysis of the parts or aspects of the text that contribute to understanding the purpose of the text Provides accurate, relevant, and precise analysis of the parts or aspects of the text that contribute to understanding the purpose of the text Incorporate conventional usages of grammar, syntax, and style in relation to your rhetorical situation Uses language that sometimes impedes meaning because of errors in usage Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors Errors not impede meaning Uses language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error- free Construct logical, thesisdriven arguments involving interpretation, analysis, critique, and synthesis Articulates a thesis, but the argument may be characterized by problems of logic, evidence, and interpretation and involve little synthesis or critique Articulates a clear thesis that is supported by credible evidence and rests on sound reasoning and interpretation Articulates a compelling thesis involving synthesis and critique of differing or opposing viewpoints and consideration of evidence and counter-evidence Re-see and extend your thinking and writing through processes such as reading, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, editing, designing, and redesigning Writing and ideas remain relatively unchanged in response to the writing process Writing and ideas are clarified and developed in response to the writing process Writing and ideas are clarified, reconsidered, developed, and better supported in response to the writing process 14 Discover and reconsider your ideas and positions through engagement with others and exposure to diverse perspectives and historical and cultural contexts Contrasts an idea or position with an opposing idea or position Considers ideas and positions in relation to other ideas and positions, and in relation to context Reflects on, clarifies and/or modifies ideas and positions in relation to other ideas and positions and in relation to context Adhere to shared standards for academic integrity and intellectual property through informed source evaluation and correct documentation Attempts to acknowledge sources of information and/or give credit to the ideas of others but does not consistently follow an accepted, uniform system for citation and reference Applies an accepted and uniform system for citation and reference within a narrow range of writing tasks Correctly applies an accepted and uniform system for citation and reference across a variety of writing tasks Articulate the ongoing development of your own writing processes and strategies and their relationship to your personal values, academic growth, and life goals Describes their writing process and strategies and suggests relationships between them and broader goals Describes the connection between developing writing processes and strategies and defined values and goals Analyzes the ways in which their writing processes and strategies have supported or impeded personal, academic, and life values and goals 15 Assessing level 3-specific outcomes Outcome Novice Developing Accomplished Articulate and use discipline-specific writing practices for a variety of academic and professional rhetorical situations Attempts to use a consistent system for basic organization and presentation Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task (s) including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices Use discipline-specific research practices in the writing process TBD by the discipline TBD by the discipline TBD by the discipline Critically evaluate the credibility of sources and evidence used to support your writing Demonstrates efforts to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas situated within the discipline and genre of the writing Demonstrates skillful use of high- quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing The CCC will determine, in collaboration with the English Department (and other programs offering courses), course instructors, and other stakeholders how course-level assessment will be conducted The rubric is designed to guide that work, not prescribe specific approaches at the course level The CCC’s research on writing assessment revealed a variety of strategies being utilized by other institutions with multi-component writing requirements Some universities facilitate annual assessments to measure the impact of their revised writing 16 outcomes and requirement models These assessments are often facilitated by a team of crossdisciplinary faculty and academic assessment staff and involve the evaluation of student writing samples using a rubric that measures student achievement in competency areas embodied by the outcomes Some institutions also use faculty reports of the overall performance and progress of student knowledge and skills in their writing course during a given semester as evidence in assessment processes Many programs engage in annual reviews of writing course syllabi to ensure engagement with the outcomes Assessment Rubrics & Tools at Other Institutions SUNY Albany: 2016-17 Writing & Critical Inquiry Report; 2014-15 Writing & Critical Inquiry Report Old Dominion University: Improving Disciplinary Writing Rubric Howard University: Writing Across the Curriculum Rubric Appalachia State University: Communicating Effectively Rubric James Madison University: Writing Rubric Arizona State University: Mid-Career Writing Assessment Eastern Oregon University: Assessment Results; General Education Course Outcomes (p 2) George Mason University: Writing Intensive Course Syllabi Review Reports; Binghamton University: Assessment of Student Outcomes in General Education: Composition (AY 2015-16) Conclusion: The CCC welcomes ongoing feedback about this proposal, and formally requests a first reading by the Faculty Senate at its October 2020 meeting 17 ... Program Administrators, and ● faculty observations of significant gaps in students’ writing abilities Additionally, assessment data and student and faculty feedback have indicated that the outcomes... the Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs shared the CCC? ??s plan for this proposal with USM’s Professional Advising Staff Advising staff were generally positive about the proposal, and shared questions... editing, designing, and redesigning Writing and ideas remain relatively unchanged in response to the writing process Writing and ideas are clarified and developed in response to the writing process