The Wild Rumpus: Building Successful Writing Programs

Through Professional Development

Our “double-whammy” Wild Rumpus consists of two sessions where ideas will come fast and discussion will

be exciting and energizing. Please join us and . . .

Using Community to Promote Professional Development in WID

Programs

Joel WingardMoravian College

“small” faculty ( 115, for 1580 students)

“small” campus (although split in two)

veteran professor is WAC/WID director

interdisciplinary GenEd and FYS committees

new “WIDOC” also interdisciplinary -- talking to departments

faculty development workshops every May

“resources for writing teachers” annotated bibliography

http://www.joelwingard.com/

Blackboard site for FYS planning

http://blackboard.moravian.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_4231_1%26url%3D

An Intensive Faculty Enrichment An Intensive Faculty Enrichment Program for Full-time Instructors in Program for Full-time Instructors in an Independent Writing Programan Independent Writing Program

Donna Nelson-BeeneBowling Green State University

General Studies Writing Program

Bowling Green State UniversityBowling Green State University

General Studies Writing (GSW)

◦ University’s independentfirst-year writing program

◦ Serves approximately 4000 students each semester

◦ Teaching staff of 41 instructors and 50+ graduate assistants

General Studies Writing Program

Features of portfolio assessment Features of portfolio assessment which promote program coherence, which promote program coherence, standards, collaboration—and standards, collaboration—and ongoing professional developmentongoing professional development

• Student writing

• Standardized rubric and

audience sheets

• Standardized student

process analysis

• Narrative self-reflectionGeneral Studies Writing Program

Program Requirements for Program Requirements for InstructorsInstructors

• Electronic teaching Portfolios

• Teaching philosophy statements

• Observation triads

• Service expectations

General Studies Writing Program

Ownership of the programOwnership of the programInstructors have a voice

Committee participation◦ Learning Outcomes and

Assessment◦ Textbook Approval◦ Technology◦ Placement Prompts◦ Think Tanks◦ Merit Evaluation◦ Writing Awards◦ Search Committees

General Studies Writing Program

Professional development Professional development within the programwithin the program

Faculty development

workshopsRegular meetingsWorkshop presentersExtensive Blackboard siteGSW manualsSummer retreats

General Studies Writing Program

texttext

Dr. Darby Lewes, Lycoming College: Dr. Darby Lewes, Lycoming College: ((English professor by day; dog trainer by nightEnglish professor by day; dog trainer by night))

Professional development Professional development opportunities across campusopportunities across campusFaculty learning communities

Workshops

University committee work

Teaching in residential

learning communities

Linked courses

Campus events

General Studies Writing Program

04/21/23

General Studies Writing Program

When the mentoring of non-tenure When the mentoring of non-tenure track faculty is intentional, ongoing, track faculty is intentional, ongoing, and multifaceted, instructors not only and multifaceted, instructors not only become strong and empowered become strong and empowered educators, but they become leaders on educators, but they become leaders on campus and within the disciplinecampus and within the discipline..

• Involvement in university initiatives• Teaching for other units on campus• Leadership on university committees• Presence at professional conferences• Award winners

Engaged Assessment:Involving PTF, GTAs, and

Lecturers

Gwen Gorzelsky

Wayne State University

CWPA ConferenceBaton Rouge, LA July 2011

Wayne State University (WSU) Program Context

• Basic Writing (40 sections), FYC (50), Intermediate Writing (30), 2 technical writing courses (10)

• WAC: Writing Intensive (WI) course in major

• Instructors: GTAs (30), PTF (50), F-T lecturers (5)

Assessment Context

• External assessment 10 years ago• Limited internal assessment W 2006: 30

FYC portfolios—competency in limited range of genres (reflective, interpretive)

• New curriculum 2007 – 2009: FYC focus = argument; Intermediate Writing focus = preparation for WI courses

• Call for assessment fall 2010: discipline-specific

Assessment goals

• Learn whether and to what extent students are transferring writing-related skills and knowledge

• Involve instructors substantively at all stages

• Close the loop: use assessment findings to improve curriculum, pedagogy, professional development

Major Scholarly Influences• Assessment: Broad (2003; 2009); O’Neill,

Moore, and Huot (2009)• Transfer: Bergmann and Zepernick (2007);

Downs and Wardle (2007); Perkins and Salomon (1988; 1992); Wardle (2009)

• Reflections and portfolios: Anson (1997); White (2005); Yancey (1998); Robertson, Taczak, and Yancey (forthcoming)

Initial Assessment: Approach and Methods

• Beginning with the transition from Intermediate Writing to Writing Intensives

• One course per year (FYC 2012 -13; BW 2013-14; tech writing 2014-15)

• Student surveys

• Student and instructor focus groups

• Instructor Dynamic Criteria Mapping (DCM) sessions

Roles of PTF, GTAs, and Lecturers

• Designing and implementing

• Participating

• Interpreting and applying findings

• Creating a connected culture

• Using findings

Interpreting and Applying:Orientation, Workshops,

Mentoring Resources• Surveyed GTAs anonymously• Asked Mentoring Committee to draw on

informal interactions/own teaching experience

• Asked Assessment Committee to draw on assessment findings

• Held joint Mentoring and Assessment Committee meeting to develop final lists

Interpreting and Applying:Pilot Intermediate Writing Sections

• Testing Writing About Writing (WAW) curriculum and reflective curriculum: 2 WAW-only; 2 WAW + reflection; 2 control

• Meeting in July & Aug. to design syllabi and assignments

• Drawing on initial assessment findings: genre and audience in WI courses; sequenced assignments

• Drawing on O’Neill, Moore, and Huot: incorporating instructors’ interests and experience

• Using White’s Phase 2 approach – portfolio evaluation focused on reflective letters that document students’ achievement of learning outcomes

Creating a Connected Culture: Role of New FYC Lecturer Cohort

• Meeting regularly as a staff• Piloting reflection assignments in FYC• Acting as informal mentors for GTAs,

PTF• Consulting on strategies for engaging

PTF• Designing orientation and workshop

sessions

Certifying the Process: Making It Worthwhile with Awards for

ProfessionalizationPatricia Freitag Ericsson

Director of Composition

Washington State University

The Context

• About 200 sections of Composition courses serving 4500 students

• Taught by a mix of TA’s, Instructors, and other faculty

• TA’s have pedagogy, theory seminar• Instructors have little support

Professional Development in Composition (PDC) Series

Goals

• Support pedagogy

• Create community

• Foster awareness of program history

• Assure knowledge of WSU policies and programs

Professional Development In Composition (PDC) Series

• Guest speakers who have contributed to WSU Composition Program

• Presentations by campus support units• Pedagogy workshops• Certificate provided to those who

attended at least 10 sessions

Goals-based Evaluation: Support Pedagogy

• General Support: 84%• Ideas for Classroom teaching: 84%• Teaching goals more ambitious: 52% • Made me a better teacher: 84%

All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

Goals-based Evaluation: Create Community

• Felt welcome at sessions: 100%• Found others who shared interests: 68%• Developed friendships: 60%• Got to know others better: 80%• Feel positive about PDC experience: 88%

All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

Goals-based Evaluation: Foster Awareness of History

68% agree or strongly agree

All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

Goals-based Evaluation: Assure knowledge of policies and programs

56% strongly agree or agree

All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

The Certificate

• Certificate was an incentive: 60%

• Certificate validated experience: 52%

All results of this survey are available at http://www.cyberhestia.org/PDC_Survey_2011.pdf

Conclusions

The PDC Series provided a successful professional development foundation for Composition teachers.

Questions for Fall 2011• How should we balance types of sessions?• Should we continue with year-long themes for single-

presenter sessions?• How do we handle policy sessions?• Are certificates worthwhile?

Teaching Portfolios for Stronger Program Assessment and

ProfessionalizationEdwina Helton

Indiana University East

Presented by Jeff Jones

Your questions and contributions