“The Vertical Writing Curriculum: Integrating and Aligning ...€¦ · “The Vertical Writing Curriculum: Integrating and Aligning Writing Instruction at ECU” Summary In response

―The Vertical Writing Curriculum,‖ 1

“The Vertical Writing Curriculum: Integrating and Aligning Writing Instruction at ECU”

Summary

In response to concerns about students‘ performance in upper-division, major-specific Writing Intensive (WI)

courses and about their preparedness for writing in the workplace, we propose a multifaceted revision of the

Writing Across the Curriculum program, including the first-year composition courses, English 1100 and 1200

(hereafter called the Writing Foundations courses to better reflect their role in the Liberal Arts Foundations

Curriculum and in the Writing Across the Curriculum program). More specifically, we suggest increased

integration of the University Writing Program and the Writing Foundations Program through professional

development for WI faculty and University Writing Center staff, a change in the timing and focus of the second

Writing Foundations course (English 1200), and the implementation of portfolio-based writing assessment across

Writing Foundations and WI courses.

Student Learning

This QEP promotes effective transfer of student learning in the area of writing through a three-pronged approach

that will do the following:

1. Distribute and deliver writing instruction more strategically throughout students‘ academic experiences at ECU.

Changes to English 1200 would involve shifting the course to the sophomore year and creating disciplinary-

themed curricula (e.g., ―Writing about the Health Sciences,‖ ―Writing about the Humanities,‖ ―Writing about

the Social Sciences,‖ ―Writing about Education,‖ etc.) that would better enable students to transfer what they

learn in English 1100 and 1200 to the writing they do in upper-division courses in their majors. This revised

course would also better allow students to see connections between their major areas and the Foundations

Curriculum.

2. Increase, through professional development, faculty and tutors‘ ability to draw on what students learn about

writing in their Writing Foundations courses.

3. Create additional, productive opportunities for students to develop meta-cognitive awareness of what effective

writers do. More specifically, the creation of common, portfolio-based assessment procedures for both the

Writing Foundations and WI courses will create spaces in which students apply and reflect on writing strategies

across contexts and purposes, and thus establish better transfer of learning.

This approach aligns well with all of the strategic directions outlined in ECU Tomorrow. Graduates who can write

effectively for a variety of audiences, purposes, and situations will be better prepared to succeed in the global

economy, obtain leadership positions, and contribute to the arts, culture, quality of life, healthcare needs, and

economic prosperity of Eastern North Carolina and beyond.

Research in the development of writing abilities supports the curricular revisions that we propose. Becoming a

better writer requires multiple, consistent opportunities to learn about, practice, and reflect on writing in various

contexts and across all levels of the academy (Bergmann & Zepernik; Brent; Carroll; Haswell; Herrington &

Curtis; McCarthy; Nelms & Dively; Smit; Sternglass; Walvoord & McCarthy; Wardle). As Perkins and Salomon

explain, ―Practice that occurs in a variety of somewhat related and expanding contexts will force the cognitive

element in question to adapt in subtle ways to each of these new contexts, yielding an incrementally broadening

ability‖ (―The Science and Art,‖ 120). Currently, as we discuss below, this variety of related and expanding

contexts for developing writing abilities is lacking at ECU.

Furthermore, the literature suggests that students learn and perform better when they have a stronger investment

in their coursework. Student investment requires a belief that the material being covered will be applicable in the

future and an interest in the subject matter being researched and written about (Ackerman; Daly; Penrose &

Geisler; Sommers). Thus, in shifting the timing and focus of the second Writing Foundations course so that

students take it when they are more comfortable with the university and more aware of their plans therein, we are

likely to increase student engagement with and retention of the writing strategies they are taught.


The literature on transfer of learning also supports the professional development we envision as part of this QEP.

Research suggests that instructors, in order to enable transfer, must frequently and consistently emphasize when

and how it can occur (Brent; Carter; Greeno, et. al; Mikulecky, et al; Perkins & Salomon). Strategies for guiding

transfer are what we intend to emphasize in workshops and other programs for faculty and tutors.

The portfolio-based assessment structure we propose, and that is elaborated below, is also supported in the

literature (Beaufort; Broad; Huot; Huot, O‘Neill & Schendel; Smith & Yancey; Wardle; Yancey). We envision an

assessment structure in which students, both in their Writing Foundations courses and throughout their WI

courses, compile a writing portfolio with several sections, each of which will be framed by reflective cover letters

in which students identify, discuss, and evaluate the writing strategies they have employed in their work. Not only

will these portfolios provide materials for assessment, but they will also serve as sites for students to develop the

kind of meta-cognitive awareness recommended in research on writing-knowledge transfer (Brent; Davies &

Birbili; Perkins & Salomon; Nelms & Dively; Tishman, Jay, & Perkins).

In sum, the literature suggests that the proposed changes will positively impact student learning. Best practices in

writing instruction, based on this literature, also speak to the effectiveness of integrating writing instruction and

systematic reflection on writing practices across all years of a student‘s university experience.

Significance and Urgency

Assessment data from the Writing Foundations courses and the WAC Program both suggest the need for a better

understanding of writing at the campus level. A ―sophomore year writing gap‖ currently exists between when

students take their Writing Foundations courses and when they are asked to transfer what they have learned to

upper-level WI courses. Student learning is hampered by this gap. At the same time, the gap—both in terms of

timing and curriculum—between the Writing Foundations courses and upper-level WI courses reinforces the

unfortunate but common perception among students that there is little value to what they learn in the Writing

Foundations courses beyond satisfying a university requirement. Our current curricular structure, in other words,

does not provide students with a clear means to see how the ability to write critically and effectively for a broad

audience can serve as a foundation for the ability to write effectively for more specialized audiences. Nor does

this current curriculum demonstrate clearly for students how important it is for specialists to be able to

communicate effectively with one another and with broader audiences. In response, we propose to revise English

1200 so that it becomes a space where students can consider, compare, contrast, and even critique the habits of

thinking and ways of writing within specialized fields. In addition to fostering dispositions toward research-based

writing that students might take into their upper-level WI courses, this revised English 1200 might serve as a

location where students can explore the complexities of how specialized knowledge gets transmitted to broader

national and international audiences.

In addition to anecdotal evidence from faculty across the curriculum who report with regularity that their students

are not strong writers, a recent assessment of ENGL 1200 demonstrated that students, while improving in several

areas involving the use of secondary research in their writing, struggled significantly with paraphrasing sources,

even at the conclusion of the course. There are several possible reasons for this unsatisfactory performance, but

one reason suggested by research in the composing processes of novice and experienced writers is that students

new to the university are accustomed to viewing sources as things to be reported on rather than as things to be

questioned, refuted and/or used as support for one‘s own argument (Penrose and Geisler; Sommer & Salz;

Herrington & Curtis). Not until students have some more experience with academic and disciplinary

conversations can they begin to see how to use information and perspectives from sources. Shifting ENGL 1200

to the sophomore year, and creating curricula that take up disciplinary conversations, is one way that the Writing

Foundations courses can facilitate this move from novice to experienced writer.

Furthermore, the Writing Intensive Course Report compiled by the University Writing Program noted that faculty

understandings of ―good writing‖ vary significantly by department and college, suggesting that there is little sense

of consistency among faculty regarding expectations in writing and writing-intensive courses. This lack of

consistency is appropriate given the different contexts and purposes of writing, but it can be confusing to students

if these differences are not carefully and meaningfully articulated. In fact, students surveyed noted their own


perception that ―good writing‖ is ―good writing‖ across contexts, which suggests a lack of awareness that

audience, purpose, and context all contribute to making writing effective in a given situation. Recent assessments

of writing intensive courses in the WAC program also demonstrate that a Kurtosis risk exists in these courses,

e.g., the median GPA across all sections of WI courses from fall 2007 - fall 2009 is 3.2. This suggests that despite

faculty perception that students are weak writers, their WI course grades do not demonstrate (or perhaps address)

that weakness. These assessments suggest that WI faculty would benefit from professional development that

explore these issues and provide methods for better articulating writing outcomes and objectives in WI courses.

Description and Scope

The QEP we propose includes the following major tasks:

1. Hold meetings among WI instructors, University Writing Program staff, the Director of Writing Foundations,

and Writing Foundations instructors to help WI instructors better understand what students are prepared to do

upon completion of the Foundations courses.

2. Shift the timing of English 1200 so that students take the course after they have completed 30 semester hours.

3. Develop disciplinary themes for English 1200 and train faculty to teach them.

4. Conduct professional development programs for instructors of upper-level WI courses and tutors at the

University Writing Center in order to foster instructional practices that promote transfer of learning. The

University Writing Program and the Office for Faculty Excellence could collaborate in the design and

implementation of these programs.

5. Design and implement portfolio-based assessment procedures in the Writing Foundations courses and

throughout WI courses.

Given ECU‘s Writing Foundations and WI course requirements, this QEP would affect every student who earns a

degree from the university. The Composition Committee from the Department of English, along with the Writing

Across the Curriculum (WAC) Committee, will coordinate with all of the departments. All departments would be

involved in some capacity as each offers WI courses. Because the proposed changes would require revision to the

Foundations Curriculum, the Academic Standards Committee and the Faculty Senate would also participate in the

proposed QEP. Thus, a wide cross-section of faculty would be involved. We also see faculty from Academic

Library Services as critical to this QEP, and they have contributed to this proposal some ideas for the design,

implementation, and assessment of library instruction for disciplinary-themed English 1200s (see appendices).

Assessment

Key to the success of this QEP would be both formative and summative assessments which would analyze the

teaching of writing across campus as well as the effectiveness of that instruction on student writing itself. In the

recent past, the Writing Foundations courses have been assessed annually through the review of student writing

samples, gathered from randomly selected sections of each course, or through end-of-semester quizzes, and the

WAC program has focused its assessment practices primarily on faculty development and direct services for

students through the University Writing Center. Research has repeatedly demonstrated, however, that portfolios

provide a richer context for assessment of student writing abilities than do these other mechanisms. Portfolios, the

literature suggests, provide more reliable data for assessing students‘ writing abilities than do timed writing tests

or final writing assignments from a particular class. It is across multiple contexts that a writer‘s abilities are more

effectively demonstrated (Beaufort; Broad; Huot; Huot, O‘Neill & Schendel; Rutz & Grawe; Smith & Yancey;

Thomas; Yancey). For this reason, other UNC system schools and many of ECU‘s peer institutions use a

portfolio system for writing program assessment (Appalachian State, Western Carolina University, Florida

International University, Northern Illinois University, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, University of

Louisville, and SUNY Buffalo). In addition, it is for this reason that the National Council of Teachers of English

provides a list of 25 composition e-portfolio models at schools around the country

(http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/electronicportfolios.).

In addition to the more reliable data that can be gathered through portfolio-based formative assessment, the

Writing Foundations curriculum and the WI curriculum can achieve more effective vertical alignment through

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncte.org%2Fcccc%2Fresources%2Fpositions%2Felectronicportfolios&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFTpigNNkb_UAAqGwRvDoYZEjewRg
















such assessment. The primary means for achieving this alignment will be the development of a University Writing

Portfolio (using iwebfolio) for all ECU students.

The University Writing Portfolio, for students who enter the university as first-semester, first-year students, will

include the following writing artifacts:

1. Items from the freshman year: Each student in English 1100 will submit selected materials from 1100 at the end

of the course. Instructors of English 1100 will require that students submit this material as part of their

coursework, most likely as the final, graded assignment in the course. This portfolio will include written

assignments from the course that, in the student‘s opinion, best demonstrate her or his ability to meet the

program-wide outcomes of the course, which are listed on each instructor‘s syllabus and which inform the

portfolio rubrics for each class (see appendices). In addition, each portfolio will be accompanied by a brief

analytical cover letter in which the student explains the writing strategies he or she used in the materials. This

cover letter will be used to determine how aware students are of their choices and abilities as writers (see a

sample rubric in the appendices). As explained above, such meta-awareness enables the transfer of writing

abilities to new contexts.

2. Items from the sophomore year: Each student in English 1200 will submit selected materials from 1200 at the

end of the course. These items will be selected by the students and submitted in a manner similar to that used in

selecting the material for inclusion in the first year. The materials will also be accompanied by a brief,

analytical cover letter.

3. Items from the junior and/or senior year: Methods for identifying and gathering materials from upper-level WI

courses will be developed by the WAC committee in conjunction with the QEP Director and the QEP Council.

Assessment of the University Writing Portfolio will take place in three separate but related steps:

1. Assessment of the Writing Foundations Courses: The Composition Committee—the body in the English

Department that, in conjunction with the Director of Composition, develops, reviews, and establishes course

outcomes, curriculum, and assessment processes for English 1100 and 1200—has developed rubrics to guide

the assessment of the Writing Foundations courses (see appendices). These rubrics draw on the statement of key

learning outcomes established by the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA), an international

professional organization of directors of writing programs and research faculty in writing studies

(http://wpacouncil.org/positions/outcomes.html). These outcomes focus on (1) rhetorical knowledge, (2) critical

thinking, reading, and writing, (3) knowledge of writing processes, (4) knowledge of conventions, and (5)

understanding electronic writing environments, all of which the CWPA has identified as essential for effective

general education writing courses. When English 1200 is shifted to the sophomore year and refocused on

disciplinary themes, the English 1200 portfolio rubric will be revised to include outcomes focused on students

demonstrating greater understanding of how writing functions within specific disciplines and a metacognitive

awareness of how dispositions learned in English 1200 might transfer to upper-level WI courses.

As per the assessment guidelines for Foundations courses established by the Faculty Senate, a random sample

of 20% of portfolios submitted for either 1100 or 1200 will be assessed over the summer by a group of trained

and compensated raters—drawn from among the English department‘s instructors of English 1100 and 1200

and interested WI faculty—using the appropriate rubric. Three different readers will review each portfolio to

ensure the consistent application of the rubrics. The results of the assessment will be entered into TracDat and

will be used to inform professional development programs for instructors of the Writing Foundations courses

and curricular design in the Writing Foundations courses.

2. Assessment of Upper-level WI Courses: The QEP will also provide the University Writing Program the

opportunity to expand the learning outcomes established by CWPA into discipline-specific contexts, and to

assess whether or not students at ECU are able to meet those outcomes during their time at the university. The

UWP is currently in the process of establishing a series of articulation meetings in 2011-2012 that will develop

discipline-specific writing outcomes, which can be used to assess student portfolios. For these meetings, the

UWP and members of the Composition Committee will meet with representatives from all departments on

http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwpacouncil.org%2Fpositions%2Foutcomes.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHwKZj_yWTvVxyM9TAzrIvjx17BOw












campus in order to better understand what different disciplines value in student writing. These meetings will

help us to articulate both cross-disciplinary and discipline-specific writing outcomes. Additionally, results from

these assessments will be useful to other departments/programs going through various review procedures to

document student learning. Because the portfolio system will retain student work linked to specific courses,

majors, and minors, we can filter assessment data for different constituencies.

3. Assessment of the Vertical Writing Curriculum: In addition to assessments of Writing Foundations courses and

upper-level WI courses, longitudinal assessments will be conducted to determine how effective the vertical

writing curriculum is. Every 5 years, a randomly selected sample of graduating seniors will be selected for the

following assessment process:

a. Students‘ portfolio materials from English 1200 and from their WI major area course(s) will be compared to

determine which aspects of writing, if any, the students struggled to transfer.

b. Surveys of students and major-area WI course instructors will be conducted to determine what, if anything,

students need in order to be better prepared through the vertical curriculum.

c. Interviews with selected students and faculty—perhaps in the form of focus groups—will be conducted to

determine how much of what students learned in their Writing Foundations courses transferred to WI courses

and what else might be done to foster student writing success.

A significant strength of this assessment procedure is that faculty in Writing Foundations and the WI program will

participate throughout, thus increasing cross-disciplinary articulation and providing greater transparency.

Schedule

As demonstrated in the schedule below, in order for there to be a sample of completed University Writing

Portfolios to report on in the 2017-2018 year, we will begin the shift in timing of English 1200 in fall 2012.

Year Activities

2011-12 In fall 2011, hold iwebfolio workshops for selected instructors whose students will be part of the

sample population to submit 1200 materials at the end of spring 2012 (see next bullet).

Implement iwebfolio component for a 25% sample of students completing 1200 in spring 2012.

The materials will serve as the basis for comparison to students who take the sophomore year,

discipline focused English 1200s starting in 2013-2014. In addition, this smaller scale

implementation will allow us to see and address any problems with the portfolio submission

process before the entire sophomore student population is asked to submit portfolio material at

the conclusion of English 1200 in the 2013-2014 AY.

Establish a series of articulation meetings in 2011–12. (See above)

2012-13 Hold iwebfolio workshops for all instructors of English 1100 and 1200 so that they know how to

use the system and how to guide their students in using it.

Implement shift of timing for English 1200: Entering freshmen will take English 1100 in fall

2012 or spring 2013.

In fall 2012 and spring 2013, develop and implement multiple, required professional

development workshops for teachers of English 1200 so that they are prepared to teach the

discipline-themed course for the first time in fall 2013. These workshops, which will also involve

upper-level WI faculty from across the university, would be held weekly or bi-weekly.

Begin professional development programs for faculty in upper-level WI courses and tutors at the

University Writing Center in order to foster instructional practices that promote transfer of

learning from English 1200 to WI courses. (Ongoing)

English 1100 component of students‘ University Writing Portfolios submitted for a 25% sample

of sections at the conclusion of English 1100. This smaller scale implementation will allow us to

see and address any problems with the process before the entire first-year student population is


asked to submit portfolio material at the conclusion of English 1100 in the 2013-14 AY.

Program assessment for English 1100 in summer 2013 using English 1100 iwebfolio component.

Assessment of English 1100 iwebfolio components will take place every third year. (Ongoing)

2013-14

(Year 1,

QEP)

Continue implementation of shift in timing of English 1200. Students who enter as freshmen in

fall 2013 will take English 1100 in fall 2013 or spring 2014. Students who entered ECU as

freshmen in fall 2012 will take English 1200 in fall 2013 or spring 2014.

Implement discipline-focused English 1200 to student who entered ECU in fall 2012.

English 1100 component of students‘ University Writing Portfolios submitted for all students

entering as freshmen in fall 2013 or spring 2014 (this pattern will continue for each freshman

class).

Students who completed English 1200 as freshmen in spring 2012 submit materials from their

junior -year, major-specific WI courses to their University Writing Portfolios.

English 1200 component of the sophomores‘ University Writing Portfolios submitted at the

conclusion of English 1200 (this pattern will then continue for each sophomore class).


Assessment of English 1200 iwebfolio components will take place every third year, starting this

year.

2014-15

(Year 2,

QEP)

Continue to offer English 1100 in fall and spring for incoming freshmen and English 1200 in fall

and spring for sophomores.

Students who entered as freshmen in fall 2012 submit materials from their junior-year, major-

specific WI courses to their University Writing Portfolios (this pattern will continue for each

junior class).

Students who completed English 1200 as freshmen in spring 2012 will submit materials from

their senior-year, major-specific WI courses to their University Writing Portfolios.

2015-16

(Year 3,

QEP)

Continue to offer English 1100 in fall and spring for incoming freshmen and English 1200 in fall

and spring for sophomores.

Students who entered as freshmen in fall 2012 will submit materials from their senior-year,

major-specific WI courses to their University Writing Portfolios (this pattern will then continue

for each senior class).


Program assessment of WI course materials in summer 2016 using WI courses iwebfolio

component.

2016-17

(Year 4,

QEP)

Assessment of Vertical Writing Curriculum using all components of the University Writing

portfolio for students who graduated in 2015 and 2016, with a focus on comparing/contrasting

performance of those who took English 1200 prior to the switch in timing and focus and those

who took it after.


2017-18 Create impact report for SACS

Risk Assessment

Pursuing a vertical writing program at ECU and implementing the faculty development and writing program

assessment proposed here is a natural outgrowth of ongoing planning and evaluation of student learning outcomes

related to their performance in writing courses. Several colleges have implemented portfolio assessment and

include writing courses at all levels of a college student‘s career in order to improve student writing. The


initiatives discussed in this proposal are consistent with best practices in writing instruction

(www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/electronicportfolios).

One issue that may be encountered in pursuing this QEP, however, involves assessment of transfer students and

those who receive advanced placement credit and thus do not take English 1200 at ECU. These students would

either have taken their Writing Foundations courses at other schools or not taken the courses (at least as designed

at ECU) at all. While at first appearing as a risk, this situation would allow us to make potentially useful

comparisons between students who take their Writing Foundations courses at ECU and those who place out of

them or take them at other institutions. A second issue might involve the use of iwebfolio by all students

beginning in 2012-2013. If the iwebfolio system cannot accommodate all of ECU‘s students at an affordable

price, we will need to investigate a technology solution that will.

Additionally, with the implementation of a ―vertical curriculum‖ that aims to help students move smoothly

through their Writing Foundations courses and into WI courses in their majors, both the UWP and the Writing

Foundations Program will need to monitor students‘ performance in WI courses that students might take outside

of their majors. In shifting the focus on English 1200 such that students are better prepared for writing in their

majors and their potential professions, we will need to ensure that they continue to receive adequate preparation to

write in non-major WI courses as well. A large part of this more general preparation for academic writing, broadly

defined, will come through English 1100, but we also intend to keep the outcomes of English 1200 broad enough

that the skills students learn as they research and write about issues specific to their majors will be transferrable to

other, non-major WI courses.

Commitment to and Support of the Topic

Anecdotal evidence continues to point to the fact that ECU faculty are deeply committed to improving the quality

of student writing. At present, two faculty committees exist to provide oversight and guidance to the Writing

Foundations program (Composition Committee) and to the Writing Across the Curriculum program (WAC

Committee). The Composition Committee, comprised of faculty in the English department and the Director of the

University Writing Program, develops curricula for English 1100 and 1200, and provides regular assessment of

course outcomes/objectives. Likewise, the WAC Committee serves as a faculty advisory committee to the

University Writing Program and provides oversight for the university‘s WI requirement. Chaired by the Director

of the University Writing Program, Dr. Will Banks, the committee is composed of faculty members from across

the university. Membership rotates on a regular basis, but currently involves the UWP Staff and tenure-stream

faculty from Thomas Harriot College of Arts and Sciences, College of Fine Arts and Communication, College of

Education, College of Human Ecology, and College of Nursing.

In addition to oversight provided by faculty across both East and West Campus, a diverse range of faculty

participate each Spring in the WAC Academy (formerly Writing Institute) sponsored by the University Writing

Program. In the last four years, over forty faculty representing every college/department on campus have

participated in the program; in their application materials, these faculty evince a strong commitment to teaching

writing in their disciplines and to improving student writing. After the WAC Academy, these faculty have become

strong advocates for WI courses in their home departments.

Some faculty may be concerned that moving English 1200 to the sophomore year will disrupt student progress

through their intended majors. Currently, only six courses in the ECU catalogue (outside English) require English

1200 as a prerequisite, which suggests that moving English 1200 to the sophomore year will not significantly

prevent students from enrolling in other courses in their majors. Attention will need to be paid to helping campus

advisors guide their students through this new process and to select courses in their majors carefully. Some

departments may want to reconsider whether the current English 1200 prerequisite is still relevant.

One obvious barrier to support from the broader faculty is that teaching and evaluating writing is time-consuming,

and for many faculty, time spent instructing students on writing in their discipline may seem to take time from

content instruction. This concern, however, is not a new one, and it is something that the Director and the staff of

the UWP will continue to address through ongoing professional development opportunities such as workshops in

which WI faculty can explore methods for ―writing to learn‖ and ―writing in the discipline‖ that work to increase


content knowledge/retention among students. Research on writing-to-learn and on student learning continues to

highlight the value that such activities have for helping students to master content knowledge (Carroll; Haswell;

Herrington & Curtis; McCarthy; Nelms & Dively; Smit; Sternglass; Walvoord & McCarthy).

One other barrier from faculty may be a concern for how to get their students to submit their writing to the

portfolio. This is a concern for us, too, and we are already working with Matt Long, ECU‘s iwebfolio manager, to

discern the best approach. But we also know that many departments and colleges on campus already make use of

online and print portfolio systems, so we believe this QEP will capitalize on these existing expectations and

expand them to the wider student body.

Another, related barrier is the amount of time necessary for instructors of English 1100 and 1200 to learn the

technology (iwebfolio) and to restructure and refocus English1200 so that it meets the goals of the vertical

curriculum. As our schedule above indicates, we plan to offer intensive, mandatory professional development

workshops in AY 2012-2013 to address both of these concerns. We do not anticipate that these intensive

workshops will put an undue burden on our Writing Foundations instructors; a reduction in the number of English

1200 sections offered during this transition year will provide them with the time that they need to participate fully

in this essential professional development.

Implementation Resource Requirements/Plan Development Process

Given the University Writing Program, the Writing Foundations courses (ENGL 1100 & 1200), and the WI

course requirements for students, an existing infrastructure exists to implement this QEP; however, increased

resources both in personnel and compensation would be needed to further develop and succeed with this plan.

The university would need to support iwebfolio accounts for all students beginning in 2011 for the incoming

class. The number of accounts per year would increase each year after that. Matt Long is checking on the license

and feasibility of these issues.

This QEP plan also requires summer stipends for faculty to conduct portfolio assessments each summer,

beginning the first year of the QEP and increasing each year in response to the need for portfolio reviews after the

sophomore year and then at graduation. Portfolios will be sampled, but for this plan to work, faculty will need to

be trained to do portfolio assessment and compensated for the training and the work they complete.

We also see at least 2, maybe 3, new positions needed as part of the QEP planning and implementation process.

One writing portfolio application expert would be needed given the increased number of student and faculty users.

A non-teaching EPA position would also be needed to help train faculty throughout the QEP implementation and

to coordinate the logistics with staff involved in the current assessment practices.

To increase buy-in from WI instructors, we might also expand the WAC Academy to help train and persuade

faculty to improve their teaching and evaluation of writing. Currently, the WAC Academy offers ten WI course

instructors from across the disciplines the opportunity to improve their teaching of writing and knowledge of

WAC, WID, and WI courses at ECU each Spring Semester with the incentive of $500 upon the completion of the

six week institute. The University Writing Program would like to expand the Academy to include a fall Academy.

This addition would allow ten more faculty members from across the disciplines to participate in this intensive

faculty development. We would also like to expand participant roles to be WI leaders in their departments,

running faculty workshop on writing in their home department, being compensated for the workshops they run,

and improving writing instruction in WI courses.

Available ECU Expertise

Will Banks—As Associate Director of Composition at ECU from 2004 - 2010 and as the current Interim Director

of the University Writing Program, I have seen writing instruction and student writing performance as it exists in

both the Foundations curriculum and the WAC program, and I have participated in the assessment of both. From

this vantage point, I can envision how this QEP would provide ECU with an unprecedented moment of focus for

reshaping curricula and improving the writing our students do at all levels. Additionally, I have six years of

experience administering writing programs and writing centers at other universities, one of which was singled out

by the national Council of Writing Program Administrators as exceptional.


Michelle Eble—As Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of English, Curriculum Liaison to the

UCC (2008-present) and as an undergraduate advisor (2005-present), I have been responsible for helping English

department faculty revise and develop WI course proposals, reviewing senior portfolios for assessment, revising

student learning outcomes for the BA in English, and communicating with faculty in English about the WI

models. My research and teaching have focused on grant writing, medical writing, and writing in professional

contexts. I believe that the proposed QEP will provide productive opportunities to improve writing instruction and

in turn, student writing.

Wendy Sharer—As Director of Composition for the past four years, and Associate Director of Composition for

five years before that, I am very familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of the current Writing Foundations

curriculum. Additionally, I have four years of experience designing and implementing assessments for those

courses and am currently working with the English Department‘s Composition Committee this academic year to

design and implement a portfolio-based assessment in English 1100 and 1200. I am very excited about the

opportunities that might be provided by the QEP: the institutional and financial support it entails would present a

wonderful opportunity for ECU to undertake and succeed in significant, and much needed, curricular revision.

Kerri Bright Flinchbaugh—As Assistant Director of the University Writing Program, ECU Health Sciences

Writing Consultant, Medical Writing Specialist for the Brody School of Medicine, and a former instructor in our

English Education program, I have a unique perspective about writing at ECU. In my assistant director position, I

direct the WAC Academy working with faculty on their teaching of writing, provide research on our WAC

program, implement programmatic assessment, and participate in the WAC Committee. On the health sciences

and medical campuses, I consult with both students and faculty on writing in their disciplines, working to improve

their skills. I see how the QEP will provide more opportunities for faculty development in writing, and I am

excited by the possibilities the portfolio-based writing assessment will provide across the disciplines.

Bibliography

Ackerman, John M. "Reading, Writing, and Knowing: The Role of Disciplinary Knowledge in Comprehension

and Composing." Research in the Teaching of English 25 (1991): 133-78

Beaufort, Anne. College Writing and Beyond: A New Framework for University Writing Instruction. Logan: Utah

State UP, 2007.

---. Writing in the Real World: Making the Transition from School to Work. New York: Columbia U Teachers

College P, 1999.

Bereiter, Carl. ―A Dispositional View of Transfer.‖ Teaching for Transfer: Fostering Generalization in Learning.

Eds. A. McKeough, J. Lupart, and A. Marini. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1995. 21-34.

Bergmann, Linda and Janet Zepernick, ―Disciplinarity and Transfer: Students‘ Perceptions of Learning to Write.‖

WPA: Writing Program Administration 31 (2007): 124-49.

Brent, Doug. ―Transfer, Transformation, and Rhetorical Knowledge: Insights from Transfer Theory.‖ Journal of

Business and Technical Communication. Forthcoming. Available online at

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/mystuff.html.

Broad, Bob. What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing. Logan, UT: Utah State

UP, 2003.

Cambridge, Barbara, Susan Kahn, Daniel Thompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds. Electronic

Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Washington, DC: American

Association of Higher Education, 2001.

Carroll, Lee Ann. Rehearsing New Roles: How College Students Develop as Writers. Carbondale: Southern

Illinois UP, 2002.

Carter, Duncan. "Critical Thinking for Writers: Transferable Skills or Discipline-Specific Strategies?"

Composition Studies/Freshman English News 21.1 (1993): 86-93.

Daly, John A. ―Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency.‖ Journal of Education Research 72.1 (Sept.-Oct.

1978): 10-14.

Davies, Chris and Maria Birbili. ―What do People Need to Know about Writing in Order to Write in Their Jobs?‖

British Journal of Education Studies 48.4 (December 2000): 429-45.

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~dabrent/mystuff.html


Greeno, James, D.R. Smith, and J.L. Moore, ―Transfer of situated learning.‖ Transfer on trial: Intelligence,

Cognition and Instruction. Ed. Douglas Detterman and Robert Sternberg, Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex,

1993.

Haswell, Richard H. ―Documenting Improvement in College Writing: A Longitudinal Approach.‖ Written

Communication 17 (2000): 307-52.

---. Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation. Dallas: Southern Methodist

UP, 1991.

Herrington, Anne J., and Marcia Curtis. Persons in Process: Four Stories of Writing and Personal Development.

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 2000.

Huot, Brian. (Re) Articulating Writing Assessment for Teaching and Learning, Logan, UT: Utah State Press,

2002.

---, Peggy O‘Neill, and Ellen Schendel, ―Defining Assessment as Research: Moving From Obligations to

Opportunities.‖ WPA: Writing Program Administration 26 (2002): 10-26.

Kistler, Ruth,Yancey, Kathleen Blake, Taczak, Kara, & Szymanski, Natalie. (2009, December 3). Introduction.

[Special issue on Writing Across the Curriculum and Assessment] Across the Disciplines, 6. Retrieved

January 8, 2011, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/assessment/kistleretal.cfm

McCarthy, Lucille. ―A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing Across the Curriculum.‖ Research

in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 233-65.

Mikulecky, Larry, Lloyd, P., Siemantel P., and Masker, S. ―Transfer beyond workplace literacy classes: Twelve

case studies and a model.‖ Reading Psychology 18.4 (1997): 352-68.

Nelms, Gerald and Ronda Leathers Dively. ―Perceived Roadblocks to Transferring Knowledge from First-Year

Composition to Writing-Intensive Major Courses: A Pilot Study.‖ WPA: Writing Program Administration

31.1 (Fall/Winter 2007): 214-40.

Penrose, Ann M. and Cheryl Geisler. "Reading and Writing without Authority." College Composition &

Communication 45.4 (1994): 505-20.

Perkins, David N., and Gavriel Salomon. ―The Science and Art of Transfer.‖ 2004. Retrieved from

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/trancost.htm.

---. "Teaching for Transfer." Educational Leadership 46 (1988): 22-32.

---. "Transfer of Learning." International Encyclopedia of Education, Second Edition. Ed. T. Hussein and T. N.

Postlethwaite. Oxford: Pergamon, 1992. 10 October 30, 2010.

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/traencyn.htm.

Rutz, Carol, & Grawe, Nathan D. (2009, December 3). Pairing WAC and quantitative reasoning through portfolio

assessment and faculty development. [Special issue on Writing Across the Curriculum and Assessment]

Across the Disciplines, 6. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from

http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/assessment/rutz_grawe.cfm

Smit, David. The End of Composition Studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP, 2004.

Smith, Jane Bowman and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds. Self-Assessment and Development in Writing: A

Collaborative Inquiry. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton P, 2000.

Sommers, Nancy. ―Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.‖ College Composition

& Communication 31.4 (1980): 378–88.

Sommers, Nancy and Laura Saltz. "The Novice as Expert: Writing the Freshman Year." College Composition &

Communication 56.1 (2004): 124-49.

Sternglass, Marilyn S. Time to Know Them: A Longitudinal Study of Writing and Learning at the College Level.

Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1997.

Thomas, Freddy L. (2009, December 3). Developing a culture of writing at Virginia State University: A new

writing emphasis. [Special issue on Writing Across the Curriculum and Assessment] Across the Disciplines,

6. Retrieved January 8, 2011, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/assessment/thomas.cfm

Tishman, Shari, Eileen Jay, and David Perkins. ―Teaching Thinking Dispositions: From Transmission to

Enculturation.‖ Theory into Practice. 32 (1993): 147-53.

Walvoord, Barbara and Lucille McCarthy. Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in

Four Disciplines. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1990.

http://learnweb.harvard.edu/alps/thinking/docs/trancost.htm


Wardle, Elizabeth. ― ‗Mutt genres‘ and the Goal of FYC: Can We Help Students Write the Genres of the

University?‖ College Composition and Communication. 60 (2009): 765-89.

---. ― Understanding ‗Transfer‘ from FYC: Preliminary Results of a Longitudinal Study.‖ Writing Program

Administration 31 (2007): 65-85.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State UP, 1998.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake, & Huot, Brian, eds. (1997). Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse

methods and practices. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.


Appendix 1: Departmental Outcomes for English 1100 and 1200

English 1100 will promote your facility with critical reading and writing by helping you to do the following:

Discover significant questions to explore and address via writing

Explore the many different purposes of writing, including writing to reflect, analyze, explain, and persuade

Practice drafting and revising

Increase your awareness of organizational strategies and your ability to apply them

Become attentive to how audience and purpose affect content, tone, and style

Incorporate sufficient and appropriate details and examples both from your experiences and from secondary research

Express your ideas with clarity and with effective syntax and punctuation

Gain competence in using computer technology in the writing process

Schedule and meet deadlines

English 1200 builds on your understanding of rhetoric and writing processes through an exploration of research-based writing. In this course

you will develop your abilities to

Formulate significant research questions

Craft a strong research proposal

Establish work plans and timelines

Locate and evaluate a variety of sources, including field-based, print, and electronic sources

Apply research and use writing to achieve a variety of purposes

Convey the results of your research to a variety of audiences

Organize source materials

Integrate outside source materials—field-based, print, and electronic—into your writing

Cite sources accurately and responsibly in order to avoid plagiarism

Identify and explain writing strategies used in your own work as well as in the work of experienced writers


APPENDIX 2: English 1100 Portfolio Rubric & Cover Letter Rubric

English 1100 Portfolio Rubric

Invention Purpose & Audience Development

& Support

Organization Editing

4

Excellent

The documents

demonstrate the writer‘s

ability engage topics and

questions critically and

fully.

The documents consistently

demonstrate a keen

awareness of audience and

purpose.

The documents

consistently and effectively

integrate appropriate and

relevant supporting details

and evidence.

The documents

consistently display

effective structure at both

the global (the document as

a whole) and local (within

paragraphs) levels

The documents

consistently display careful

proofreading and are

largely free of surface-

level errors.

3

Good

The documents


ability to engage topics and

questions thoughtfully with

occasional lapses.

The documents demonstrate

an awareness of audience and

purpose, with only occasional

lapses.

The documents are

generally successful in

integrating sufficient and

appropriate details and

evidence, with only

occasional lapses.

The documents generally

display effective structure

at both the global and local

levels, with only

occasional lapses.

The documents reflect the

proofreading efforts of the

writer and include only

occasional surface-level

errors.

2

Adequate

The documents


ability to engage topics and

questions, but in limited

ways.

The documents demonstrate

an uneven awareness of

audience & purpose.

The documents provide

supporting details and

evidence, but do so

inconsistently and/or with

uneven integration.

The documents

demonstrate an uneven

awareness of

organizational strategies at

the global and local levels.

The documents evidence

some proofreading and

editing, but several

surface-level errors remain.

1

Poor

The documents fail to

demonstrate a level of

engagement with topics

and questions that is

adequate for college-level

work.

The documents largely fail to

demonstrate an awareness of

audience & purpose.

The documents are

substantially lacking in

supporting detail and

evidence.

The documents in the

portfolio largely fail to

display effective structure

at the global and/or the

local levels.

The documents reflect

minimal or ineffective

proofreading and editing

strategies. Numerous

surface-level errors remain.

English 1100 and 1200 Portfolio Cover Letter Rubric

4

Excellent

The cover letter clearly demonstrates the writer‘s ability to identify and explain the writing strategies (i.e., argument, organization, evidence,

style, tone, etc.) used in the documents included in the portfolio.

3

Good

The cover letter demonstrates the writer‘s ability to identify and explain the writing strategies used in the documents included in the portfolio,

with only occasional areas that are confusing or incomplete.

2

Adequate

The cover letter demonstrates that the writer is sometimes able to identify and/or explain the writing strategies used in the documents included in

the portfolio, but there are several areas that are confusing or incomplete.

1

Poor

The cover letter largely fails to demonstrate an ability to identify and explain the writing strategies the writer has made in the documents included

in the portfolio.


APPENDIX 3: English 1200 Portfolio Rubric

Inquiry Purpose & Audience Source Selection

& Support

Organization Integration &

Citation of Sources

Editing

4

Excellent

The documents

demonstrate the

writer‘s ability to

identify and fully

engage significant

research questions.

The documents

consistently

demonstrate a keen

awareness of audience

and purpose.

The documents

consistently use

credible sources to

fully support the points

the writer makes.

The documents


effective structure at

both the global (the

document as a whole)

and local (within

paragraphs) levels.


the writer‘s ability to

smoothly integrate

source material and to

cite sources accurately

in order to avoid

plagiarism.

The documents


careful proofreading

and are largely free of

surface-level errors.

3

Good

The documents

demonstrate the


engage meaningful

research questions

thoughtfully but with

occasional lapses.

The documents

demonstrate an


and purpose, with only

occasional lapses.

The documents use

credible sources to

support the points the

writer makes, with

only occasional lapses.

The documents

generally display

effective structure at

both the global and

local levels, with only

occasional lapses.


the writer‘s ability to

integrate outside

source materials and to

cite sources accurately

in order to avoid

plagiarism, with only

occasional lapses.


the proofreading

efforts of the writer

and include only

occasional surface-

level errors.

2

Adequate

The documents

demonstrate the


engage research

questions, but in

limited ways.

The documents in the

portfolio demonstrate

an uneven awareness

of audience & purpose.

The documents use

credible sources of

research to support the

points the writer

makes, but do so

inconsistently.

The documents

demonstrate an uneven

awareness of

organizational

strategies at both the

global and local levels.


an adequate, but

inconsistent, ability to

integrate source

material and to cite

sources.

The documents

evidence some

proofreading and

editing, but several

surface-level errors

remain.

1

Poor

The documents fail to

demonstrate a level of

engagement with

research questions that

is adequate for college-

level work.

The documents largely

fail to demonstrate an


& purpose.


do not use credible

sources to support the

points the writer is

trying to make.


fail to display effective

structure at the global

and/or the local levels.

The documents include

numerous problems

with citation of sources

and/or fail to integrate

source material

effectively.


minimal or ineffective

proofreading and

editing strategies.

Numerous surface-

level errors remain.


APPENDIX 4: ENGL 1100 & 1200 Curriculum Update - Joyner Library Suggestions

Class Curriculum Comments Department

ENGL 1100 Finding Books and Articles in OneSearch

Evaluating Sources: o Information Cycle. Ex. Scholarly Books

are usually published 1+ years after an event

o Identifying parts of a book/journal to cite. Ex. Finding volume & issue numbers on the physical article

o Identifying parts of a citation. Ex. Looking at a citation and figuring which part is the journal title v. article title

Library 101: Introduction to Research Tutorial (http://libguides.ecu.edu/library101)

OneSearch is a new tool that searches books, scholarly journals, newspaper articles, e-books, dissertations, conference proceedings, and numerous academic databases in one search

During instruction & reference interactions, it’s apparent that freshman and upper-level students have a hard time evaluating the types of information found in a book versus a journal article

The purpose of Library 101 is to teach students basic research skills needed to succeed in college. As a result of the Library 101 tutorial, students will master the following skills: Getting Help, Navigating the Library's Website, Evaluating Sources (Books, Journals & Webpages), Searching for Articles and Books, Avoiding Plagiarism, and Citing Sources

Reference

ENGL

1200: Finding Articles in Discipline Databases

Identifying Scholarly, Professional/Trade, & Popular Journals

Primary v. Secondary Resources

Introduction to resources in majors/disciplines

Students in upper-level classes have a hard time identifying and locating scholarly, professional/trade, and popular journal articles

The definition of primary and secondary resources are different in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences

Reference

ENG 1200 History of Careers/Professions in North Carolina and around the world through Artifact Research

ECU Motto/Purpose: Service to the region

ECU Strategic Goal: ECU will prepare our students to compete and succeed in a global economy

Advanced research techniques in a smaller setting

Introduction to and interaction with Primary Resources

Putting service learning into context

NC

Collection

& Special

Collections

Amy Gustavson, Coordinator of Instructional Services, J.Y. Joyner Library, [email protected] Matt Reynolds, North Carolina Collections Public Services Librarian, J.Y. Joyner Library, [email protected] October 20, 2010

http://libguides.ecu.edu/library101

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

“The Vertical Writing Curriculum: Integrating and Aligning ...€¦ · “The Vertical Writing Curriculum: Integrating and Aligning Writing Instruction at ECU” Summary In response