Growth Agenda for Wisconsin Grant Program Annual Report

Transcription

1 1 Growth Agenda for Wisconsin Grant Program Annual Report Please submit the annual report as a Word document to our office via to bjokisch@uwsa.edu (no hard copies please). The annual report is due on Friday, February 21, The following information must be provided: Institution Name: University of Wisconsin Colleges Project Title: Professional Development for Core English Skills Instructors: Using Research- Based Teaching Strategies to Improve the Retention and Academic Success of Underprepared College Readers and Writers Principal Investigator: Holly Hassel Project Team: Cassie Phillips, Jen Heinert, and Joanne Baird Giordano Person submitting report: Holly Hassel holly.hassel@uwc.edu Phone Number: Grant Amount: $47,300 in first year, $79,900 total Report Date: February 21, 2014 Date project began: June 1, 2013 Date project ends (planned): July 30, 2015 I. Status Report Describe the extent to which the project met its mileposts to date. Discuss project activities in relation to meeting the proposal s expected outcomes. Please include any activities related to dissemination and sustainability if appropriate at this time. Project Objective #1 The main focus of our project s first year has been on Objective #1 of our grant proposal: Instructors in the UW Colleges first-year writing program will redesign their courses (including course structure, assignments, and instructional activities) using a competency-based framework and research-based best practices in order to help underprepared students achieve the course learning outcomes for the first-year writing sequence. The project team achieved the following outcomes over the first eight months of the grant project: Developed a project website ( or ( as the starting point for a broader online resource that serves all instructors who teaching first-year writing and developmental coursework. Created online instructional resources, placement materials, advising resources, and other web content. (See Appendix A for important components of the website.) Recruited project participants in three cohorts from 12 UW Colleges campuses and the Online Program. One campus chose not to participate. Developmental Writing (10 participants) English 101 (first semester writing, 12 participants) English 102 (core writing requirement, 11 participants)

2 2 Planned, conducted, and assessed first seminar for project participants and other English Department members on October 11, 2013 October Seminar Focus: Designing Assignments and Assessing Writing (Workshop materials are archived online, see Appendix B for agenda; Appendix C provides the anonymous, post-workshop request for feedback circulated to participants.) Created curriculum guides, model writing assignments, and instructional resources for each course in the writing program to help project participants and other writing instructors design their courses. Developed the following online workshops for project participants Teaching Developmental Writing (English 097, English 098, LEA 106) Unit 1: Designing a Course Based on Learning Outcomes Unit 2: Designing Assignments to Teach Critical Reading and Source- Based Writing Unit 3: Designing Learning Activities to Teach Critical Reading Unit 4: Assessing Students Progress Toward Achieving Course Learning Outcomes Seminar Follow-Up Unit on Assessing Student Writing in Developmental Courses Seminar Follow-Up Unit on Using Writing Process Activities in Developmental Writing Classrooms Two additional units and supplemental pages on working with high-needs students will be available by the end of the academic year An online handbook for developmental writing students for participants to use with their students Teaching Writing in a Studio Setting Preparing to Teach a Writing Tutorial English 101: Teaching Critical Reading and Source-Based Writing Unit 1: Designing a Course Based on Learning Outcomes (available September) Unit 2: Designing Assignments to Teach Critical Reading and Source- Based Writing (October) Unit 3: Using Writing Process Activities in English 101 and Supporting Independent Revision through Self-Assessment and Reflective Writing (available October) Unit 4: Designing Learning Activities that support assignments focused on Critical Reading and Writing about Readings (available December) Unit 5: Assessing Student Writing, Responding to Student Writing, and Assessing Students Progress (available January) Unit 6: Strategies and Logistics for Conducting Writing Conferences Two additional units will be available before the end of the end of the academic year English 102: Teaching Research-Based Writing Unit 1: Designing a Course Based on Learning Outcomes Unit 2: Designing Assignments to Teach Critical Reading, Research, and Source-Based Writing Unit 3: Using Writing Process Activities in English 102 and Facilitating Independent Revision through Self-Assessment and Reflective Writing Unit 4: Designing Learning Activities to Strengthen Critical Reading, Research, and Writing Three additional units will be available by the end of the academic year

3 3 Created a project D2L site for participants to engage in online discussions; participate in peer review of syllabi, writing assignments, learning activities, and other course materials; submit revised versions of required materials; and submit project assessment materials. Facilitated online workshops, provided support to project participants, and mentored other instructors in the writing course redesign process. Created project assessment materials. Planned, conducted, and assessed second face-to-face seminar for project participants on February 7, (See Appendix D for agenda.) Focus: Designing Classroom Learning Activities Began designing a face-to-face campus workshop on teaching at-risk students in writing to provide professional development training for instructors who are not participating in the project and to give additional support to project participants. (Six campuses are tentatively scheduled to participate in workshops in Spring 2014 and the remaining campuses and online instructors in Fall 2014.) Instructor Course Resign Progress The project participants have actively worked on redesigning their courses, participated in the workshops, and worked on the required seminar activities. Depending on course assignments, some instructors are teaching their redesigned courses in Spring Others will teach their courses in Fall 2014 at the end of the calendar year. All instructors will submit evidence of course redesign by the end of the Spring 2014 semester. Project Objective #2 The project team has designed web resources, seminars, and online workshops to help achieve the following objective: The UW Colleges will increase the percentage of students who successfully complete the core writing requirement after starting college in non-degree credit writing courses. By Fall 2015, the UW Colleges will increase the success rate of students moving from non-degree writing (English 098 and LEA 106) to English 101 from the Colleges average of 47% to 60%. By Spring 2016, the success rate of students beginning in non-degree composition who complete the core writing requirement (English 102) will increase from the UW Colleges average of 29% to 40%. The UW Colleges English Department will not be able to trace progress toward achieving this objective until instructors finish teaching their redesigned courses. However, during this year, Gregg Nettesheim, the UW Colleges Institutional Researcher, worked with the English Department to collect multi-year data on student success rates in composition courses by UW Colleges campus. Members of the project team, Cassie Phillips (Writing Program Administrator) and Joanne Giordano (Developmental Reading and Writing Coordinator) also collected additional data on composition course and developmental program enrollment trends, placement patterns, and student demographics. They have developed additional tools for monitoring developmental course placements and indicators of college readiness for at-risk students on each campus. Based on this institutional research, Phillips and Giordano have identified key areas of program development that will help the English Department achieve its goal of increasing the academic success of students who begin college in developmental courses. They will disseminate this information through campus visits and workshops that are designed to meet the needs of each campus based on previous local program development work. They are also working on a long-term plan for program development that will help the

4 4 institution continue efforts to increase the core writing requirement completion rate for at-risk students after the grant period ends. Project Objective #3 The face-to-face seminars are helping the project team work toward achieving the third project objective: The project team will facilitate institution-wide and system-wide conversations about increasing the persistence, retention, and academic success of underprepared and at-risk readers and writers. The team will focus on this area intensively during the second project year through additional online training, campus workshops, a developmental writing program workshop, and a UW System workshop. This year, three members of the project team (Hassel, Phillips, and Giordano) are serving on a UW Colleges Developmental Education Task Force. They are working with the task force to a) collect and analyze information about persistence, retention, and academic success of underprepared and at-risk students; b) evaluate current institutional and campus practices in relation to national best practices; and c) disseminate information to UW Colleges administrators, faculty, and staff. Members of the project team will participate in an upcoming meeting with UW Colleges campus deans and department chairs to discuss institutional research on the success of underprepared students in the writing program to initiate conversations among administrators about increasing success, retention, and persistence rates. They will have a follow-up meeting with deans and chairs in the fall with additional presentations to UW Colleges Student Affairs staff. Dissemination Almost all project materials, including the online workshops and archived seminar materials are available through the new program website funded by the grant. The website is currently accessible only through a secure link while the project team continues to develop it. At the end of the project, the team will assess, review, revise, and edit all online project materials. The website will then become a public site that other instructors and programs in the UW System can use as a resource. Sustainability The project team has designed website, instructional resources, and online workshops to serve as a professional development resource for composition and developmental skills course instructors for the foreseeable future. At the end of the grant period, the Developmental Reading and Writing Coordinator will continue to update the online resources. An annual Developmental Reading and Writing Program workshop will provide instructors with ongoing professional development opportunities related to the grant project. If program travel funding permits, campus instructors will also participate in campus workshops every other year. II. Assessment Plan Attach the current assessment plan for the project. If there were any changes in the project activities, outcomes or evaluation, they should be identified in this plan. Discuss any key findings and how the institution used collected data to improve the project.

5 5 Original Project Assessment Plan Description of Project Objectives and Project Assessment Objective 1: Instructors in the UW Colleges first-year writing program will redesign their courses (including course structure, assignments, and instructional activities) using a competency-based framework and research-based best practices in order to help underprepared students achieve the course learning outcomes for the first-year writing sequence. The UW Colleges English Department currently has 127 instructors teaching across the 13 campuses. In the first year, at least 40 instructors will complete one online workshop, attend the two face-to-face seminars, and submit evidence that they have redesigned their courses. Assessment of Objective 1: At the end of Spring 2014, instructors will submit evidence of course redesign (syllabus, assignments, and select instructional activities). The UW Colleges English Department Assessment Committee will use a rubric based on departmental competencies and other assessment tools to evaluate the evidence of course redesign and determine the percentage of instructors who successfully revised their courses to reflect departmental and national guidelines for first-year college writing courses. The Assessment Committee and Project Team will also collect and analyze student writing from participating instructors courses to assess underprepared students progress toward achieving the learning outcomes for the first-year writing program. Objective 2: The UW Colleges will increase the percentage of students who successfully complete the core writing requirement after starting college in non-degree credit writing courses. By Fall 2015, the UW Colleges will increase the success rate of students moving from non-degree writing (English 098 and LEA 106) to English 101 from the Colleges average of 47% to 60%. By Spring 2016, the success rate of students beginning in non-degree composition who complete the core writing requirement (English 102) will increase from the UW Colleges average of 29% to 40%. Assessment of Objective 2: The Access to Success Team and Institutional Researcher will collect and analyze quantitative data on the success rates of students in composition courses. They will also collect additional quantitative data on the academic success, retention, and persistence rates of project cohort students in their first two college years. Objective 3: The project team will facilitate institution-wide and system-wide conversations about increasing the persistence, retention, and academic success of underprepared and at-risk readers and writers. Assessment of Objective 3: The project team will administer a survey to collect feedback from participating English instructors at the end of the first year and again after the second year of the project, including assessment data from each online workshop and the face-to-face seminars. The project team will collect participant feedback immediately following the system-wide conference and follow up again one year after the conference to assess the impact of the conference on UW System writing and learning support programs.

6 6 Project Assessment Activities in (underway) Objective 1: Instructors in the UW Colleges first-year writing program will redesign their courses (including course structure, assignments, and instructional activities) using a competencybased framework and research-based best practices in order to help underprepared students achieve the course learning outcomes for the first-year writing sequence. Assessment 1 for Objective 1 Participating instructors will submit the following evidence of course redesign by the end of the Spring 2014 semester: o Revised syllabus o Revised assignments o Selected instructional activities Participating instructors will complete peer review assessment activities through the project D2L site. The grant project team (which includes the English Department s Assessment Coordinators) will also assess submitted materials. Materials will be assessed using a rubric [see Appendix E] designed by the grant project team in order to collect evidence for the final project report and determine whether each participant successfully completed grant activities. Instructors will complete these assessment activities in June Findings for the assessment of instructor materials will be available in summer Assessment 2 for Objective 2 In the semester when they first teach the redesigned course (Spring 2014 or Fall 2014), instructors will distribute IRB informed consent forms to students in the selected course. Instructors will then collect formal and reflective writing from students who consent to participate and upload students work to the grant project D2L site. Each instructor will also complete an assessment of consenting students writing, along with an additional reflective assessment on the success of the redesigned course. Each participating instructor and the project team will assess student writing, using the first-year writing sequence course rubrics [see Appendix F] to evaluate the extent to which redesigned courses help students successfully complete writing program learning outcomes. The assessment of student writing will also help the project team identify barriers to achieving learning outcomes and completing the core writing requirement. The project team will then use the assessment findings to revise online instructional resources, and the English Department will use assessment results for future departmental professional development activities. During the face-to-face seminars in October and February, instructors received instructions for receiving informed consent and completing project assessment activities. Based on an end-offall term survey, 10 participants planned to implement new course materials in Spring 2014, 2 in the Fall of 2013, and 15 in the Fall of Instructors who are teaching their redesigned courses in Spring 2014 have distributed consent forms, and they are collecting student writing. Participating instructors and the project team will assess student writing in Summer The remaining instructors will complete assessment activities when they teach their redesigned courses in Fall 2014, and the project team will assess student writing in early Initial findings from the assessment of student writing will be available in 2015.

7 7 Objective 2: The UW Colleges will increase the percentage of students who successfully complete the core writing requirement after starting college in non-degree credit writing courses. By Fall 2015, the UW Colleges will increase the success rate of students moving from nondegree writing (English 098 and LEA 106) to English 101 from the Colleges average of 47% to 60%. By Spring 2016, the success rate of students beginning in non-degree composition who complete the core writing requirement (English 102) will increase from the UW Colleges average of 29% to 40%. Assessment for Objective 2 The Access to Success Team and Institutional Researcher will collect and analyze quantitative data on the success rates of students in composition courses. They will also collect additional quantitative data on the academic success, retention, and persistence rates of project cohort students in their first two college years. In Fall 2014, members of the project team collected extensive data on enrollment, success, and retention rates for students by composition placement for the institution and for each campus. This data will serve as the benchmark for assessing success outcomes in relation to grant project activities. Since the grant project covers a period of two years, student success data will be collected beyond the first year of the project through Preliminary findings will be available in the Spring 2016 semester. A final report on these findings will not be available until Fall Objective 3: The project team will facilitate institution-wide and system-wide conversations about increasing the persistence, retention, and academic success of underprepared and at-risk readers and writers. Assessment Activities for Objective 3 Seminar participants completed an online survey at the end of each seminar. The project team is using these results to help shape future project activities for the coming year and review online instructional resources. Project participants will complete a survey at the end of Spring 2014 to collect feedback on the online workshops and overall grant activities. The project team will use these results to revise and improve the archived workshops for training instructors in future semesters. English Department members will receive a survey at the end of Spring 2014 for feedback on the website. The project team will use this data to conduct a website review and make revisions during the summer. The project team will circulate an evaluation after the system-wide conference in Data and findings will be disseminated through various avenues: The UW Colleges Virtual Teaching and Learning Center coordinator can use the findings to initiate Colleges-wide discussion among instructors across disciplines and departments The UWC Writing Program Administrator and Developmental Reading and Writing Coordinator will disseminate results to English Department instructional staff; findings can inform additional professional development opportunities such as workshops, reading circles, and seminars. Results and findings may be disseminated throughout the institution in the form of presentations to academic leadership such as department chairs, deans, and associate

8 8 deans at their biennial meetings. III. Expenditures: Please provide a report of project expenditures detailed by category and source of funds. $20,000 was allocated as summer development stipends for the project coordination team to develop the website, create online instructional resources, and begin the online workshop development as well as generate informational and presentation materials to invite participants. Additional responsibilities included completing the Institutional Review Board approval process for collecting and analyzing student work. Each of the participants fulfilling the expectations of the project (outlined on the project website), will receive a $ stipend for participating in the year. We plan to carry over some funds to provide additional stipend funding if possible to disburse to project participants who complete the workshop on teaching reading in Fall Seminar expenses: Meals and materials were coded to the grant funding budget. Travel costs were covered by the UW Colleges Office of Academic Affairs IV. Changes: Describe any additional changes (staff, program direction, etc). Rather than fund a project coordinator course release in Spring 2014, we reallocated some funds to account for the number of participants who will be developing and submitting materials (as well as student writing) to the grant project team for feedback in Spring We determined it would be a better alignment of resources with project needs to distribute those funds in the form of additional summer compensation for the project team to conduct project assessment rather than to fund a course release for a single team member in Spring This allowed for a peer review focused process as well as greater validation in assessment of project goals. V. Benefits of Continued Funding: Describe the benefits of continuing funding for the project based on the results and findings of project to date. Continued grant funding is essential for the UW Colleges English Department to continue working toward providing instructors with the training required for teaching core literacy skills course at an institution of access. The UW Colleges serves as the primary institution of access

9 9 for the UW System, and the English Department provides instruction to many students who would otherwise be excluded from higher education. Institutional enrollment records show that the number of developmental writing students in the UW Colleges has almost tripled over the past decade. Data that the project team collected as part of the project assessment illustrates the importance of continuing professional development efforts aimed and helping instructors address the complex learning needs of increasing numbers of at-risk students. In 2006, less than ten percent of newly admitted students on most campuses were placed into developmental writing courses. In Fall 2014, about one-fifth of all UW Colleges first-year students were placed into developmental reading, and many of the students in credit-bearing English 101 would have been placed in a non-degree course at many institutions based on their standardized test scores. Further, less than half of newly admitted UW Colleges students graduated from high school in the top-half of their high school graduating classes, and 17% graduated in the bottom quartile. Very few members of the UW Colleges English Department are adequately prepared to make changes to their teaching in response to a dramatic increase in at-risk readers and writers without continued professional development support. Approximately 75% of UW Colleges writing course sections are taught by instructors who are working off the tenure track. Only 8 percent of developmental writing courses are taught by tenure-stream faculty, only one faculty member teaches developmental reading, and only one (the Department Chair) teaches composition tutorials. Adjunct instructors have limited access to professional development. One important result from the project so far has been that even well-trained participants with relevant graduate coursework have noted how difficult it has been for them to make a transition to working with underprepared students at an institution of access. The feedback from the project that we have receive so far, especially from instructors who teach developmental courses, is that the seminars have been essential for helping them make adjustments to their courses. The UW Colleges English Department is extraordinarily grateful for grant funding that permits us to provide instructors with the support required for redesigning their courses to help at-risk students successfully complete the core writing requirement. Continued project support will allow us to help instructors fully implement their redesigned courses in Fall 2014 and then revise our instructional materials and online professional development training based on feedback from the project cohort. This ongoing work into next year will help us create a sustainable writing program and work toward retaining underprepared students in higher education. Grant funding for the second year will also permit us to more fully address problems for underprepared readers through an online workshop, provide training to online writing program instructors, train faculty mentors, and create more effective placement resources.

10 10 Appendix A: Website Components First-Year Writing Program Resources Program Overview Composition Course Sequence Learning Outcomes for First-Year Writing Developmental Writing English 097: TRIO Introduction to College Writing English 098: Introduction to College Writing Learning Resources 106: Multilingual Writers Workshop [available December 2013] English 101: College Writing and Critical Reading English 102: Critical Writing, Reading, and Research Resources for Teaching College Composition Recommended Readings for Teaching Composition Recommended Readings for Teaching Developmental Writing Developmental Program & Learning Support Courses Resources Developmental Reading and Writing Program Resources Developmental Reading and Writing Program Overview (a quick introduction to the program curriculum and available courses) Developmental Reading and Writing Program Goals Guidelines and Resources for Campus Academic Literacy Programs (a guide for campus developmental programs) Placement Guidelines for Developmental Courses Developmental Writing Courses Teaching Developmental Writing [available Fall 2013] English 097: TRIO Introduction to College Writing English 098: Introduction to College Writing LEA 106: Multilingual Writers Workshop Placement in Multilingual Writers Workshop Composition Tutorials Composition Tutorial Resources Teaching Composition Tutorials [available Fall 2013] English 099: Composition Tutorial LEA 120: Intermediate Composition Tutorial UW Colleges English Department Composition Tutorial Guidelines Reading Courses LEA 101: Academic Reading LEA 103: College Reading and Study Strategies Learning Skills Courses LEA 102: Learning Skills LEA 107: Academic English Skills Workshop English Language Courses LEA 106: Multilingual Writers Workshop LEA 107: Academic English Skills Workshop LEA 108: Oral Communication for Multilingual Students Professional Development for Instructors Developmental Program Workshops

11 11 Teaching Developmental Writing (ENG 097/098 and LEA 106) Teaching Writing in a Studio Setting (ENG 099 and LEA 120) English 101 Workshops Teaching Critical Reading and Source-based Writing (ENG 101) English 102 Workshops Teaching Research-based Writing (ENG 102) Previous Workshops Improving Core Writing Requirement Completion (April 2013) Teaching At-Risk Writers (February 2012) Developing Campus Academic Literacy Programs (February 2011) Placement for Composition and Learning Support Courses Overview of the Placement Process for Composition and Learning Support Courses Multiple Measures Placement Process Multiple Measures Placement Overview Resources for English Department Placement Teams and Advisors Wisconsin English Placement Test Cut Scores ACT Cut Scores Developmental Course Placement Guidelines (general overview) Developmental Reading Placement (LEA 101 and LEA 103) Developmental Writing Placement (ENG 097, ENG 098, and LEA 106) Composition Tutorial Placement (ENG 099 and LEA 120) Learning Skills Placement (LEA 102) Tools for Placement Teams [forthcoming] Placement Guidelines and Policies UW Colleges English Department Placement Guidelines Placement Review and Appeals Process Exemption from English 102 (core writing course) Placement for Multilingual Students Guidelines for international students and US resident multilingual students Overview of Placement Options for Multilingual Writers Placement Questionnaire for Multilingual Students Placement for Multilingual International Students Resources for Campus Administrators Frequently Asked Questions about Placement Best Practices, Guidelines, and Policies Creating and Developing Campus Academic Literacy Programs Campus Academic Literacy Program Guidelines and Recommendations [guidelines and resources for developmental courses] English Language Learning Program Guidelines and Recommendations [forthcoming Spring 2014] UW Colleges English Department Composition Tutorial Policy Developing Effective Campus Writing Programs Guidelines for Nontraditional Delivery Methods (accelerated, hybrid, and compressed video courses) Dual Enrollment for High School Students Stacked Composition Courses Course Maxima for Core English Skills Courses [forthcoming white paper] Online Writing Instruction Readings and Research about Teaching Writing Online [forthcoming]

12 Online Teaching and Learning (VTLC White Paper) Placement Guidelines UW Colleges English Department Placement Guidelines Placement Review and Appeals Process Exemption from English 102 For additional resources and recommendations, also see Placement Process for Composition and Learning Support Courses Teaching and Learning Inclusive Pedagogy (VTLC White Paper) Learning Needs of UW Colleges Students [forthcoming white paper] Writing Centers and Other Academic Support Centers UW Colleges English Department Writing Center Policy Program Development Resources for Campuses Overview of English Skills Courses Composition Course Sequence Overview of Developmental Reading and Writing Program Curriculum (brief description of each course) Understanding Composition and Support Course Placement Placement Guidelines (resources for placement and advising for composition and developmental English courses) Wisconsin English Placement Test Cut Scores ACT Cut Scores Placement Guidelines and Policies UW Colleges English Department Placement Guidelines Placement Review and Appeals Process Exemption from English 102 (core writing course) Advising for Developmental Support Course Enrollment Developmental Course Placement Guidelines (general overview) Developmental Reading Placement (LEA 101 and LEA 103) Developmental Writing Placement (ENG 097, ENG 098, and LEA 106) Learning Skills Placement (LEA 102) Advising for Composition Tutorial Enrollment Composition Tutorial Placement (ENG 099 and LEA 120) Composition Tutorial Recommendations for First Semester Advising (ENG 099) Composition Tutorial Recommendations for Continuing Student Advising (ENG 099 and LEA 120) Enrollment Guidelines for Accelerated and Blended English Skills Courses Accelerated Course Enrollment Guidelines Accelerated Hybrid Course Enrollment Guidelines for Students Advising Resources Overview of English Skills Courses Composition Course Sequence Overview of Developmental Reading and Writing Program Curriculum Understanding Composition and Support Course Placement Placement Guidelines (resources for placement and advising for composition and developmental English courses) Wisconsin English Placement Test Cut Scores ACT Cut Scores Placement Guidelines and Policies UW Colleges English Department Placement Guidelines 12

13 13 Placement Review and Appeals Process Exemption from English 102 (core writing course) Advising for Developmental Support Course Enrollment Developmental Course Placement Guidelines (general overview) Developmental Reading Placement (LEA 101 and LEA 103) Developmental Writing Placement (ENG 097, ENG 098, and LEA 106) Learning Skills Placement (LEA 102) Advising for Composition Tutorial Enrollment Composition Tutorial Placement (ENG 099 and LEA 120) Composition Tutorial Recommendations for First Semester Advising (ENG 099) Composition Tutorial Recommendations for Continuing Student Advising (ENG 099 and LEA 120) Enrollment Guidelines for Accelerated and Blended English Skills Courses Accelerated Course Enrollment Guidelines Accelerated Hybrid Course Enrollment Guidelines for Students Instructor Handbook for UW Colleges Academic Literacy Courses Contact Information English Department Contact Information For New Instructors Curricular Guidelines and Course Development Resources First-Year Writing (English 101 and English 102) Developmental Courses (090-Level English and Learning Resources/LEA courses) Composition Tutorial Guidelines (English 099 and LEA 120) Evaluation and Merit Process Guidelines for Class Visits Additional Resources Other Resources for Instructors Resources for Research

14 14 Appendix B: Agenda for October Seminar UW Colleges English Department Professional Development for Core English Skills Instructors: Using Research-Based Teaching Strategies to Improve the Retention and Academic Success of Underprepared College Readers and Writers Seminar on Designing Assignments and Assessing Writing Friday, October 11, 2013 UW Fox Valley Emeritus Room 9:30-10:00 am: Collegiality and Coffee 10:00-10:15 am: Overview of Grant Project and Assessment Activities [Holly Hassel] 10:15-11:45 am: Part 1: Assignment Design Workshops (bring a writing assignment) Developmental Writing--Emeritus Room English 101--Emeritus Room English 102--Room :15-10:45 am: Designing Effective Assignments 10:45-11:15 pm: Mapping Outcomes and Competencies 11:15-11:45 am: Building Scaffolding 11:45-12:00 pm: Reflection [Jen Heinert] 12:00-12:45: Lunch 1:00-3:00 pm: Part 2: Assessing Student Writing 1:00-1:30 pm: Assessing Student Writing: The Basics [Cassie Phillips] 1:30-2:15 pm. Small Group Discussions on Calhoon-Dillahunt and Forster Article Group 1--Emeritus Room Group 2--Emeritus Room Group 3--Room :15-3:00 pm: Managing Workload for Assessing Writing [Joanne Giordano] 2:45-3:00pm: Reflections: Share One Takeaway with the Group [Jen Heinert]

15 15 Appendix C: Seminar 1 Participant Feedback (collected anonymously via Qualtrics survey) Please name one "takeaway" you got from the workshop that the project team can post on the writing program website. This might include insights from discussion or the reading, ideas you plan to implement into your course, revisions to writing assignments, or something else. Text Entry Borrowing an idea from a colleague's assignment sheets -- giving stages and timelines for each assignment. I will implement more one-on-one conferences with students as part the of the on-going course process. Giving student feedback - how we can use conferencing to make it more of a dialogue with students. i can write fewer and less-directive margin comments! cancel class and meet with students individually I'm planning to provide more in class feedback during early stages of the writing process. This workshop gave me a clearer sense of how my 098 in-class work can feed very directly into their essay assignments. It reinforced how important it is to reshape how we assess student writing and respond to student writing. The most important thing I will take away from the workshop is a greater insight into how to give students meaningful feedback. Many of the methods that were discussed can ease my workload and increase how useful my feedback is for students. The insights on feedback were great and inspired me to ask students what they thought about feedback, which confused me more, but at least got me thinking more critically about it. I really liked the breakout sessions to discuss the assignments. I am now commenting on students thesis statements and outlines before I have them do rough drafts. At first this seemed like extra work; now, I see that it saves time for both me and the student. Grading is less stressful for me and (I think) the drafting process is less stressful for the student.

16 16 Overall, how did you feel about balance of time spent on the workshop activities between small and large-group discussions, working on your own materials, working with peers, and getting feedback from others? # Answer Bar Response % % % % % % Total % Overall, how did you feel about the food selections? # Answer Bar Response % % %

17 % % % Total % Though the grant project team has workshops planned for this year, we would welcome ideas for what sorts of topics would you like to see for additional workshops in the coming years as time and funding allow. What topics of discussion are you particularly interested in? classroom temperament/group dymanics Text Entry grading portfolios, guiding students to independent insight by 102 end Finding scholarly pieces to use with students, and methods for how to teach them. The topics on grading and assignment creation worked well. I continue to be interested in topics about classroom practices and activities, addressing sentence level problems, and ELL writing issues conferencing strategies Assessment, Classroom Activities, Curriculum design More on feedback. I would really like to do a little more breakout groups that get at the sequencing of assignments. So, we could not look at all the details of each assignment prompt for the different units but think about how each is building off the next. Portfolio grading--the various options! I trust the path you are taking me on-- keep doing what you are doing.

18 18 Please share any other questions, comments, or concerns: Text Entry Very helpful to share honest concerns and to talk one-on-one with UW Colleges peers who teach the same classes and types of students. I wish I could have super-hero action figures of you ladies. Nice work. enjoyed sharing ideas about what other people are doing, perhaps too much time spent on general Eng Dept issues. There were a lot of activities to complete before the first workshop. Many people did not complete the online posts. How would one enforce this? That is a hard question. Also, there were 2-4 articles to read. How many people read these? It seemed the small group discussions were based on 'what I do in my class' rather than research-based, scholarly discussion. I think this was because many people did not read the articles. Maybe require only one article per workshop and have the D2L post be based on this? Maybe there could be an 'assignment' of reading one article per 2-3 weeks. Each 'assignment' could be related to either a f2f workshop or online post. I don't know what a good solution would be for this.?? I learned a lot from this workshop--thanks! Sound was a big issue during the breakout sessions in the large room. I was straining to hear the other members of the group speak. Yay! Workshops! This workshop helped me become a more intentional instructor! A good workshop. Keep it up. Please feed us more nacho cheese. My only complaint about the workshop was that it went over the scheduled time. The material we had left to discuss on the agenda was interesting and important, certainly, but I had definitely reached my saturation point by the time 3 o'clock rolled around. I left feeling like I had a lot of ideas for things to work on and improve, which was excellent, but almost couldn't help checking out mentally when the clock struck 3. I'll also say nice work, Holly and Joanne, since I know you both ended up taking on more responsibilities than you probably anticipated given the circumstances with our other two project leaders. Less time spent visiting - time is so precious -

19 19 Appendix D: Agenda for February Seminar Professional Development for Core English Skills Instructors: Using Research-Based Teaching Strategies to Improve the Retention and Academic Success of Underprepared College Readers and Writers Seminar on Developing Classroom Learning Activities February 7, 2014 UW-Marathon County Terrace Room (Room 100) Breakout Rooms Dean s Conference Room (Room 217) Library Conference Room (Room 251) 9:00-9:30 - Coffee and Conversation 9:30-10:00 - Grant Work Responsibilities and Reminders Timeline for project completion Required stipend responsibilities Project assessment Preview of upcoming project activities Updates on web resources 10:00-11:00 - Reading Discussion Hassel and Giordano. Transfer Institutions, Transfer of Knowledge: The Development of Rhetorical Adaptability and Underprepared Writers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College (September 2009): Discussion Questions What challenges do at-risk students have adapting to new writing situations? What teaching strategies should we use to address these challenges? What kinds of classroom learning activities help students adapt to new rhetorical situations? 11:00-12:00 - Cohort Discussions Rhetorical analysis and/or synthesis assignments (challenges, goals, teaching strategies) Grant project review Have you implemented any changes from the October seminar? Do you plan to? Are you incorporating/working on changes from the online workshops? What is most challenging for students? Questions, your learning needs, ideas for future topics? Preparation for post-lunch discussions 12:00-1:00 - Lunch Break

20 20 1:00-2:00 - Small Group Cohort Discussions (developmental, ENG 101, and ENG 102) Crowd-source learning activity for selected assignments in the course curriculum. In groups of 3, select the analysis or synthesis assignment from the course curriculum and brainstorm, develop, and carefully design an activity that would help students make progress in the writing process for that paper assignment. Write brief instructions for students. Sharing and discussion of learning activities. How do the activities reflect the objectives of the assignment and the learning needs of our student population? 2:00-3:00 - Classroom Learning Activity Peer Review and Discussion Breakout Groups Bring a revised classroom learning activity that you are developing as part of the curriculum redesign project; this can be an activity that you are working on for next semester or have already completed as part of the online workshop Criteria for effective assignments Process for reviewing the project/giving feedback Peer review of learning activities and materials 3:00-3:30 - Next Steps Large group discussion--project completion, support, timelines, and deadlines Distribute free books Takeaways

21 21 Appendix E: Rubric for Assessing Materials Professional Development for Core English Skills Instructors: Using Research-Based Teaching Strategies to Improve the Retention and Academic Success of Underprepared College Readers and Writers Rubric for Assessing Completed Materials Assessment Criteria Self-Assessment Additional Observations Syllabus reflects a curricular design in alignment with writing program learning outcomes Syllabus reflects an approach to pedagogy that helps underprepared students achieve the course learning outcomes Reading assignments support students development toward achieving learning outcomes for critical reading Writing assignments demonstrate a sequenced, scaffolded approach that effectively transitions students through the course and to the next course Learning activities directly support students development toward successfully completing a particular assignment Learning activities directly support students progress toward achieving learning outcomes The overall course effectively helps underprepared students achieve program learning outcomes and make progress toward completing the core writing requirement

22 22 Appendix F: Assessment Rubrics for Student Work Assessment Rubric for English 097, English 098, and LEA 106 For each participating student, the student s instructor will use this rubric to assess a) at least one formal academic essay completed in the second half of the course that requires analysis of assigned course readings and b) an end-of-semester self-assessment or reflective text. Instructors may choose to assess a collection of writing or an entire final portfolio. Advanced Proficient Competent Developing Rhetorical Knowledge Effectively adapts content, form, and style to the audience, purpose, and requirements of each essay Makes choices as a writer that are especially appropriate for the stated demands of a specific writing task and situation Adapts content, form, and style to the audience, purpose, and requirements of the assignment Makes choices as a writer that are appropriate for the stated demands of a specific writing task and situation Adapts content and form to the audience, purpose, and requirements of the assignment Makes choices as a writer that demonstrate an ability to follow assignment instructions Does not demonstrates an ability to adapt content and form to the audience, purpose, and requirements of an assignment Does not follow assignment instructions Critical Reading Use A for essays that analyze and evaluate a text Use B for essays that analyze and synthesize ideas from two or more texts A) Insightfully analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of an author s arguments and supporting evidence, using effective quotes and specific examples from the text B) Synthesizes ideas from two or more assigned texts to develop and support a complex thesis with effective evidence from each text A) Accurately analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of an author s arguments and supporting evidence, using quotes and specific examples from the text B) Synthesizes ideas from two or more assigned texts to develop and support a thesis with effective evidence from each text A) Evaluates the effectiveness of an author s arguments and supporting evidence, using details from a text B) Synthesizes ideas from two or more assigned texts to develop and support a thesis with appropriate details from each text A) Does not demonstrate a basic ability to evaluate an author s arguments and/or support an evaluation with details from a text B) Does not demonstrate an ability to synthesize ideas from more than one text and/or use appropriate evidence from multiple readings to support a thesis

23 23 Writing Organizes a cohesive essay around an insightful thesis Includes a well-written thesis statement that takes a position on a complex issue Consistently organizes each body paragraph around a well-written topic sentence that presents a main point for the paragraph and a supporting point for the thesis Develops and supports a thesis with multiple pieces of effectively selected and relevant evidence from course readings Effectively explains the relationship between supporting evidence and both the thesis and main point of a paragraph Organizes a cohesive essay around a clear thesis Writes a clear thesis statement that takes a position on an issue Consistently organizes each body paragraph around a clear topic sentence that presents a main point for the paragraph and a supporting point for the thesis Develops and supports a thesis with multiple pieces of specific, relevant evidence from course readings Consistently connects supporting evidence to the thesis and main point of a paragraph Organizes an essay around a controlling idea Writes a basic but clearly stated thesis statement that meets the requirements of the assignment Organizes paragraphs around a single idea; includes clear topic sentences that present the main point for a body paragraph and a supporting point for the thesis Develops and supports a thesis with specific, relevant, and adequate evidence from course readings Connects supporting evidence to the thesis and main point of a paragraph Does not organize an essay around a basic controlling idea Has no thesis statement or an unclear thesis statement Does not demonstrate an ability to write a clearly stated topic sentence and/or organize a paragraph around a main point Does not include sufficient evidence from readings to support the thesis Does not connect supporting evidence to the thesis and/or main point of a paragraph or makes completely inappropriate connections between evidence and the thesis Processes Consistently uses the recursive writing process to generate multiple drafts with thoughtful, thorough revisions Consistently and critically Consistently uses the recursive writing process to generate multiple drafts Consistently responds to instructor and peer Uses the recursive writing process to generate at least two drafts for an essay Responds to instructor feedback with adequate Does not revise the essay and/or respond to instructor feedback Does not use appropriate language for evaluating college

24 24 responds to instructor and peer feedback with thorough revisions Accurately and effectively assesses the writer s own writing process and texts with evidence from the student s own writing feedback with appropriate revisions Accurately assesses the writer s own writing process and texts with evidence from the student s own writing revisions Uses appropriate language to assess the writer s own writing process and texts with basic evidence from the student s own writing writing; does not demonstrate a basic ability to assess the student s own writing Knowledge of Conventions Consistently uses an appropriate level of formality for college-level writing Applies rules of standard written English to sentence structure, punctuation, and word choice appropriate for the writing situation with few errors and inconsistencies Demonstrates an ability to proofread and edit a formal essay Consistently incorporates borrowed material from course readings with clear signal phrases and uses parenthetical references for page numbers in print sources Consistently distinguishes between Uses an appropriate level of formality for college-level writing Applies rules of standard written English to sentence structure, punctuation, and word choice appropriate for the writing situation with some minor errors and inconsistencies Shows a basic ability to edit and proofread a formal essay Incorporates borrowed material from course readings with clear signal phrases and uses parenthetical references for page numbers in print sources with some minor inconsistencies Consistently distinguishes between Shows a basic but emerging ability to use an appropriate level of formality for college-level writing Applies rules of standard written English to sentence structure, punctuation, and word choice appropriate for the writing situation with some errors and inconsistencies Shows a basic or emerging ability to edit a formal essay Incorporates borrowed material from course readings with basic signal phrases and uses parenthetical references for page numbers with some errors and inconsistencies Uses an inappropriate level of formality for college-level writing Does not follow rules of standard written English or an ability to follow basic academic writing conventions; may have multiple errors and inconsistencies that interfere with meaning Does not demonstrate an emerging ability to edit an essay Does not use signal phrases and/or use parenthetical references for page numbers from the course book Plagiarizes unintentionally; does not distinguish between ideas from course readings and the writer s

25 25 ideas from course readings and the writer's own thinking; accurately and perceptively represents the meaning of the original text ideas from course readings and the writer's own thinking; accurately represents the meaning of the original text Distinguishes between ideas from course readings and the writer's own thinking; for the most part, accurately represents the meaning of the original text own thinking; and/or misrepresents the meaning of course texts in multiple sections of an essay Composing in Electronic Environments Uses Microsoft Word to create a well-organized, appropriately formatted, and visually appealing document that meets the needs of readers Uses Microsoft Word to create a well-organized, appropriately formatted document that meets the needs of readers Uses Microsoft Word to create an appropriately formatted document Does not demonstrate the ability to use a Word processing program to format an electronic document Assessment Rubric English 101 For each participating student, the student s instructor will use this rubric to assess a) at least one formal academic essay completed in the second half of the course that requires analysis of sources and/or assigned course readings and b) an end-of-semester self-assessment or reflective text. Instructors may choose to assess a collection of writing or an entire final portfolio. Advanced Proficient Competent Developing Rhetorical Knowledge Use A to assess all essays. Use B to assess a rhetorical analysis essay. A) Demonstrates advanced skills and adaptability across multiple genres and purposes; effectively meets the needs of readers and the purpose of the writing task B) Insightfully and perceptively analyzes the rhetorical features of a text Writes effectively in multiple genres and for multiple purposes; proficiently meets the needs of readers and the purpose of the writing task B) Analyzes the rhetorical features of a text Demonstrates the ability to write in multiple genres and for multiple purposes; shows a basic ability to produce a text that meets the needs of readers and fulfills the text s purpose B) Identifies the rhetorical features of a text Does not show proficiency in writing in multiple genres for multiple purposes produces a text that does not meet reader needs or the writing purpose B) Misidentifies or does not identify rhetorical features of a text

26 26 Critical Reading Perceptively understands, analyzes, and evaluates complex arguments in texts Effectively and accurately synthesizes arguments and ideas from multiple texts, using strategies that are appropriate for a specific writing task Understands, analyzes, and evaluates complex arguments in texts Accurately synthesizes arguments and ideas from multiple texts, using strategies that are appropriate for a specific writing task Demonstrates a basic ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate complex arguments in texts Accurately synthesizes arguments and ideas from multiple texts Demonstrates a stilldeveloping ability identify, analyze, and evaluate complex arguments in texts Does not synthesize arguments and ideas from multiple texts or misunderstands the authors arguments Writing Effectively and perceptively organizes a cohesive thesis-based essay; supports a complex argument with especially well-chosen evidence from multiple texts or research sources Effectively organizes a cohesive thesis-based essay; supports an argument with appropriate and adequate evidence from multiple texts or research sources Organizes a cohesive thesis-based essay; supports an argument with appropriate evidence from multiple texts or research sources Shows an emerging but still developing ability to organize an essay based on a thesis and support an argument with evidence from multiple texts Research Use to assess a research essay Effectively uses library databases to find credible sources to support a thesis Proficiently uses library databases to find appropriate sources to support a thesis Shows a basic ability to use library databases to find information on a topic Does not show a basic ability to use library databases or find an appropriate source for a college writing task Processes Critically and effectively uses feedback to draft, revise, and edit Demonstrates effective use of invention, drafting, revising, and editing strategies Effectively uses feedback to draft, revise, and edit Demonstrates use of invention, drafting, revising, and editing strategies Uses feedback to draft, revise, and edit Uses the recursive writing process to generate multiple drafts of an essay Does not use feedback to draft, revise, and/or edit Does not demonstrate effective use of the writing process (invention, drafting, revising, and editing) Knowledge of Conventions Effectively demonstrates academic writing Shows proficiency with academic writing Follows academic writing conventions, may have Shows consistent problems with adhering

27 27 conventions with few problems with sentencelevel error Consistently uses sources without plagiarizing, using effective strategies to distinguishing between the writer s own thinking and ideas from sources Proficiently uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system conventions with minimal sentence-level error Uses sources without plagiarizing, using appropriate strategies to distinguishing between the writer s own thinking and ideas from sources Uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system some sentence-level errors Avoids intentional and unintentional plagiarism Uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system with a few inconsistencies to sentence-level and academic writing conventions May demonstrate unintentional plagiarism Does not follow a the basic conventions of a recognized documentation system Composing in Electronic Environments Effectively and proficiently uses technologies and tools for composing academic texts in electronic environments. Proficiently uses technologies and tools for composing academic texts in electronic environments Uses technologies and tools needed for composing an academic text in electronic environments Does not demonstrate competency in use of appropriate technologies for composing an academic text in an electronic environment (Microsoft Word, library databases, etc.)

28 28 Assessment Rubric for English 102 For each participating student, the student s instructor will use this rubric to assess a) a research-based argument essay completed in the second half of the course that requires analysis of sources and/or assigned course readings and b) an end-of-semester self-assessment or reflective text. Instructors may choose to assess a collection of writing or an entire final portfolio. Advanced Proficient Competent Developing Rhetorical Knowledge: Reading Texts Effectively supports claims, using the rhetorical features of a variety of scholarly (research-based) texts appropriate to the writer s needs Consistently and effectively uses complex supporting sources appropriate to the writing situation Consistently supports claims, using the rhetorical features of a variety of scholarly (research-based) texts appropriate to the writer s needs Consistently and effectively uses supporting sources appropriate to the writing situation Supports claims, using the rhetorical features of a variety of scholarly (research-based) texts appropriate to the writer s needs Uses supporting sources appropriate to the writing situation Does not use the rhetorical features of a text to identify sources that are appropriate to the writer s needs Rhetorical Knowledge: Writing (Audience, Purpose, and Form) Effectively and consistently provides appropriate context for the demands of a specific writing situation in support of claims Consistently makes effective and appropriate formal, structural, and language choices based on the audience, purpose, and requirements of an academic assignment Accurately, effectively, and perceptively assesses Effectively provides appropriate context for the demands of a specific writing situation Makes effective and appropriate formal, structural, and language choices based on the audience, purpose, and requirements of an academic assignment Accurately and effectively assesses the writer s own rhetorical choices Provides appropriate context for the demands of a specific writing situation Makes appropriate formal, structural, and language choices based on the audience, purpose, and requirements of an academic assignment Accurately assesses the writer s own rhetorical choices Does not provide appropriate context for the demands of a specific writing situation Does not make appropriate choices based on the audience, purpose, and requirements of an academic assignment Shows an emerging but still developing ability to accurately assess the writer s own rhetorical choices

29 29 the writer s own rhetorical choices Critical Reading: Consistently, accurately, and effectively identifies and analyzes main claim(s) and key supporting points of relevant and credible scholarly texts Consistently and accurately identifies and analyzes main claim(s) and key supporting points of relevant and credible scholarly texts Accurately identifies and analyzes main claim(s) and key supporting points of relevant and credible scholarly texts Demonstrates an emerging ability to identify main claim(s) and key supporting points of scholarly texts; includes evidence from sources without analysis Writing Use A for portfolios or other collections of writing. Use B both for essays and portfolios. A) Consistently produces insightful academic essays for a variety of rhetorical purposes supported by scholarly research B) Effectively contextualizes the writer s position within multiple valid and scholarly positions about a narrowlyfocused issue A) Consistently produces cohesive academic essays for a variety of rhetorical purposes supported by scholarly research B) Accurately contextualizes the writer s position within multiple valid and scholarly positions about a narrowlyfocused issue A) Produces cohesive academic essays for a variety of rhetorical purposes supported by scholarly research B) Situates the writer s position within multiple valid and scholarly positions about a narrowlyfocused issue A) Shows an emerging ability to produce academic essays for a variety of rhetorical purposes supported by research B) Does not provide a context for the writers position and/or situate it within multiple and positions about a focused issue Research Asks a narrowly-focused original research question Perceptively synthesizes the existing scholarly conversation surrounding that question Conducts a thorough and effective research process to answer the question Asks a narrowly-focused, college-level research question Synthesizes the existing conversation surrounding that question Conducts a thorough research process to answer the question Asks a focused collegelevel research question Identifies the existing conversation surrounding that question Conducts a research process to answer the question Does not ask a collegelevel research question Does note demonstrate an ability to Identify select conversation surrounding that question Does not use an appropriate research process to address the

30 30 question Processes Uses especially effective strategies for generating, drafting, revising, and editing Critically uses feedback from readers to revise and rethink a text Accurately and critically evaluates the student s writing in relation to the learning outcomes with effective evidence from the student s text(s) Uses successful strategies for generating, drafting, revising, and editing Effectively uses feedback from readers to revise and rethink a text Produces accurate Accurately and critically evaluates the student s writing in relation to the learning outcomes with evidence from the student s text(s) Uses appropriate strategies for generating, drafting, revising, and editing Uses feedback from readers to revise and rethink a text Accurately evaluates the student s writing with evidence from the student s text(s) Does not revise essays or shows a developing ability to use a recursive writing process and revise writing based on feedback from readers Evaluates the student s writing inaccurately or does not support a selfassessment with evidence from the student s text(s) Knowledge of Conventions Consistently, effectively, and accurately follows conventions for academic writing in a revised and edited formal text with few errors Consistently, accurately, and effectively uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system Consistently and accurately follows the conventions of academic writing in a revised and edited formal text with few errors Consistently and accurately uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system Follows the conventions of academic writing in a revised and edited formal text Accurately uses in-text and bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system with minor inconsistencies Does not follow the conventions of academic writing in a revised and edited formal text Does not demonstrate the ability to use in-text and follow bibliographic conventions of a recognized documentation system Composing in Electronic Environments Documents the ability to independently use technologies critically and effectively based on the demands of a writing task Documents the ability to independently and effectively use technologies based on the demands of a writing task Documents the ability to independently use technologies based on the demands of a writing task Does not demonstrate the ability to use technologies for writing and research or uses inappropriate technologies for the demands of a writing task

31 31

32 32 Appendix G: Feedback after Second Seminar Timestamp 2/12/2014 9:09:57 2/12/2014 9:11:51 2/12/ :12:55 When thinking about the agenda, which of the following parts of the seminar were most helpful for you? Peer review of classroom learning activities Cohort "crowdsourcing" of learning activities Reading discussion of TETYC article We welcome feedback on ways to ensure that face-to-face workshops and seminars more effectively meet the needs of department instructors. Please provide any suggestions you have for improving face-toface professional development meetings. By cohort, more discussion of types of activities that meet the new learning outcomes. Discussion of how each of us does this would be helpful to determine if what I am doing fits, needs modification, or a better way to do it. Sometimes discussions can get off-topic and focus on a topic that might be relevant for one or two persons, but not everyone. I would prefer that group discussions stay on topic. Excellent work, folks! In thinking about the seminar discussions and activities, what were the most important "takeway(s) from the seminar? That is, what idea or ideas will be most relevant to your work in the classroom? On a scale of 1-10,share your assessment of the balance of seminar activities (reading discussion, small and large group teaching discussion, etc) I liked the breakout sessions. Sharing ideas and getting feedback on assignments was most valuable. 7 The activities session was the most useful session. However, the article was extremely enlightening! 8 1. We need to think very carefully about our student population when making instructional decisions and try to develop activities and strategies that are most 10 List any issues or topics that you would like to discuss in future professional development workshops for the writing program and/or developmental program. How to prepare students for writing in other disciplines-- what are the nuances that we should be aware of. I think more invention of class activities would be helpful. The session on revising current activities would had been more helpful had everyone brought something and had our group not focused on one person's assignment.

33 33 effective and efficient in helping students improve their chances of meeting learning outcomes and developing transferable skills/strategies. 2/12/ :21:04 2/12/ :36:24 2/14/ :55:05 2. I need to find more ways to give students a chance to practice, in the classroom, concepts that will need to be applied to their formal assessments. I also need to work on providing more useful formative feedback on those learning activities. Cohort "crowdsourcing" of learning activities 10 Cohort "crowdsourcing" of learning activities Peer review of classroom learning activities Cohort discussions about teaching 2/17/2014 6:58:37 challenges 2/17/ :42:25 Cohort "crowdsourcing" of I thought this was a really well-run and interesting meeting. I'd like to see more meetings with components that lead to tangible takeaways. I think brining in an outside speaker might be a great addition. This is a comment on the "which parts of the I appreciated the time spent talking about practical application: the actual activities we created and discussed to be used in our classrooms. There's a lot to be said for theoretical discussion, but having something tangible was a real benefit. 9 Desiging better classroom activities--the rubric was very helpful, and creating an activity as a group was very useful. 10 I especially appreciated the 102 workshop activities in which we developed an assessment for class activities and each participant shared current activities. 8 Two of the most significant take-aways for me were for 10 one thing I always think is interesting and that I'd like to hear others talk about (and also contribute to a conversation about) is the idea of teaching a semester-long course to a theme. Anything on providing feedback on student writing would be great. Effectively using the portfolio method--this seems to be a major part of the curriculum, and so it might be good to address this. I would just like to continue having the opportunity to share

34 34 2/17/2014 8:45:04 2/17/ :27:42 learning activities Cohort "crowdsourcing" of learning activities Reading discussion of TETYC article seminar were most helpful" buttons. I wanted to select them all but couldn't. They were all important and all were useful. I hope we use this format again. I think it went great. In some ways I feel reading more research before the session is good (the last time we read 3 essays). I know it is hard for people to get through it but it it very useful to read scholarship on pedagogy that is related exactly to what we are doing. more opportunity for students to generate text IN class and receive peer feedback immediately (and instructor feedback, time allowing) as sometimes students "forget" to do the work. So, I'll have a short model to show/discuss, and then allow time to generate text and receive feedback, before moving on to the next task. So far, this seems to be working well. The other was to try to simplify guidelines on essay handouts as I tend to provide a significant amount of info on the handouts with the "intent" of being clearer, but perhaps it's too much info for inexperienced and time-challenged students to digest. Just thinking about how best to use class time was really helpful. I sometimes struggle with how to teach the skills I know students will need for their essays. 10 The reading discussion and then the discussion of how the assignments should be textbased. 10 and receive feedback on essay assignmentss and activities, and to hear new ideas from our creative colleagues. I also like sharing challenges and hearing from others what suggestions they have in our smaller breakout groups. As Molly said, I come away energized from these meetings! I would like perhaps see a variety of essay prompts -- or assignment sequences -- that worked really well for people. These would be examples drawn from classes in which instructors have already revised the class according to the learning outcomes, obviously. It would be just nice to hear why certain approaches worked well for people. BTW: this Ann M if

35 35 2/18/2014 9:45:20 Peer review of classroom learning activities That I can use a lot of the 098 materials on the website. I don't have so much pressure to reinvent the wheel. 8 you want more feedback on this. I thought it worked well! from a participating instructor: