|
Conference
Program
3rd Biannual
Reading and
Writing across the Curriculum Conference at
Sacramento
State
Friday, February 29,
2008
10:00-2:00
University Union
Orchard and Forest Suites
10:00 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION (Forest Suite)
10:30-11:30 CONCURRENT SESSION I
Student Perspectives on Writing
(Orchard I)
“A Shot of Apathy:
Regular or Decaf?” Jane Watson and Erica Reeves, English, Sac State
Abstract: Our collaborative research project emerged as we found
ourselves commiserating about students who could seem to care less about
reading, writing, critical thinking, and even learning in general. The
questions guiding our research seemed so simple at first: Why are our
students so apathetic? How can we combat this apathy and motivate our
students to learn? In retrospect, these preliminary questions reveal our
desperation and naiveté as fledgling Teaching Associates. In our defense,
however, our questions have evolved into more sophisticated and discerning
lines of inquiry: Is the behavior we witness in our classrooms, in fact,
apathy? Are our interpretations of students’ behavior different from our
students’ interpretations of their own behavior? If our students are not
apathetic, then what are they? Ultimately, in addition to offering the
most accurate portrayal of our students’ behaviors, which seems to defy
conclusions, we strive to elucidate our own biases and idiosyncrasies as
teachers.
“‘We just don't know
what they're looking for’: Students Share Their Struggles Interpreting and
Negotiating Writing Assignments across Disciplines,” Sylvia Morales and
Krisi Brown, English, Sac State
Abstract:
One of the main struggles that students face with writing in the
university is negotiating the disparate demands and expectations of
various disciplines and faculty. Still, in order to succeed in college,
they must be able to write proficiently for a variety of instructors, all
of who have different expectations for student writing and who use
different ways of making those expectations clear. The purpose of this
panel is to allow students to share their experiences and struggles with
writing across disciplines so that instructors and students can better
understand one another’s expectations.
The Benefits of Grading Student Writing in One-to-One
Conferences
(Orchard II)
Cynthia Linville and
Darlene Ott, English, Sac State
Abstract: Learn how to save time and improve two-way communication
with students via grading conferences. Learn under what circumstances such
conferences are most useful, how to structure the conferences, and how to
address the challenges that arise. Grading papers and giving feedback to
student writers can be less tedious and a more helpful process if
instructors share information in person with student writers. Use
one-to-one conferences to explain the strengths and weaknesses of a
student's paper and assign a preliminary grade. Students will thank you
and the pile of papers you need to take home will diminish.
Improving Graduate Student Writing Across the Curriculum
(Orchard III)
Mardena Creek,
University Writing Program, UC Davis
Gary Sue Goodman,
University Writing Program, UC Davis
Raquel Scherr,
University Writing Program, UC Davis
Abstract: With the increasing awareness that writing strategies and
skills must continue to develop as writing tasks become longer and more
challenging, the demand for graduate student writing instruction is
rising. A panel will discuss the process of developing a graduate writing
program at UC Davis: how we are making the demand visible and acquiring
institutional support and funding for graduate student instruction;
strengths and weaknesses of different instructional formats we have
offered, from graduate peer tutoring sessions to stand alone 1-hour,
half-day, and full day workshops, workshop series, writing courses in
specific areas or disciplines; and TA training in teaching writing
designed to provide graduate writing instruction at the same time. We
will also discuss our
research, surveys of graduate students, and collaborations with faculty to
identify both key problems that graduate students commonly encounter and
best practices for coaching graduate student writing, especially through
the process of developing proposals, researching, drafting and revising
dissertations. Panelists are all faculty in the University Writing
Program and presenters in the Writing in the Disciplines Workshop Program
11:45-12:45 CONCURRENT SESSION II
New Approaches to Writing Assessment
(Orchard I)
"Rubrics and Beyond: a Classroom
Application for Empowering Rubrics"
Michael Sutcliffe, English, Sac State
Allison Himelright, English, Sac State
Abstract: As university efforts to intensify writing opportunities and
instructional moments increases, the need for faculty and student
awareness of biases and values in writing assessment becomes critical.
With a multicultural population well over 50%, Sacramento State University
reflects a campus of immensely divergent values systems. As our campus
continues to grow and embrace its cultural multiversity, the role of our
values becomes even more significant. Because writing assessment is a sine
qua non in all courses that require writing, grading practices that
address the diverse values of both the student and faculty population are
essential.
Specifically, we will be looking at the role of writing and rubrics in
meeting University and curricular goals and discuss the benefits and
limitations of rubrics as a tool. We will explore a classroom application
of Bob Broad’s Dynamic Criteria Mapping method of qualitative inquiry as
an inroad to revealing embedded values. We will attempt to provide a
practical application for students and instructor collaboration in both
the creation and continuation of writing assessment, so that all voices in
the classroom can share agency in our ongoing educational process.
“Shifting Theories of
Writing: Focusing on the Student in Large-Scale Writing Assessment at
CSUS,” Jeremy Trimble, English, Sac State
Abstract: This paper is a look at the changes that are taking place
regarding the Writing Proficiency Exam (WPE) and how it will become the
WPJ (Writing Placement for Juniors), focusing in particular on the
underlying assumptions that support each test. In order to more
effectively demonstrate these differences, I discuss how these changes
will be reflected in the workshops attendant to both exams. After looking
at the teacher-centered structure of the WPE workshops, I explore
potential revisions to the WPJ workshops. These changes would be designed
to make the workshops more student-centered and participatory to more
accurately reflect the theories that support this new placement. Through
an examination of how students can prepare for the placement, I intend to
show what kinds of writing and thinking will be expected for the WPJ.
Crossing the Great Divide: Resolving Differences between High
School English Writing Curriculum Instruction and Post-Secondary
Composition Expectation
(Orchard II)
Heather Donovan,
English, Sac State
Sonya Hale,
English, Sac State
Katie Miller, English,
Sac State
Denise Pica, English,
Sac State
Abstract: This panel seeks to explore the varying expectations of
college writing as well as the complex issues preventing the seamless
transition of high school students into the college writing environment.
By initiating an open dialogue between writing teachers across the
disciplines, the panel ultimately hopes to show that miscommunication and
misperception, rather than improper training, leads to the disparity
between high school student’s writing experience and the expectations of
college professors. By revealing the true reasons for the disparity and
engaging in productive discussion on how to realign our expectations in
light of these revelations, college professors and high school writing
teachers will come to a closer understanding of how to go about preparing
students for the rigors of writing at the university level and as members
of the academic writing community. As a result, we seek teacher-to-teacher
communication about these differences and then intend to explore a
contextualization of these issues as they pertain across the curriculum,
not merely in English composition courses. To effectively engage in this
dialogue, we intend to assess state writing standards and assessments for
high school students and compare them with writing assessments mandated at
the college level. In addition, we will analyze the means of evaluating
student writing at both the high school and college level, specifically
through rubric comparison and terminology explication.
Sources for our
research include California State Standards for Writing (11th
and 12th grade), the EAP Program, the SAT writing assessment
and rubric, the California High School Exit Exam, the WPE and its rubric,
English 1A (or its equivalent) sample syllabi and writing rubric, and
course descriptions and expectations for CSUS writing intensive courses
across the curriculum. We will also incorporate information garnered
through surveys, interviews, and written student testimonials.
Teaching Writing in the Disciplines: Part I
(Orchard III)
“Writing-to-Learn
Techniques for Developing Discipline Competencies:
Lessons from an MBA Class,” Leonardo Legorreta, College of Business, Sac
State
Abstract: Often college professors will require their students write a
term paper under the generally accepted assumption that “writing is good
for you”– like “an apple a day.” When writing-in-itself becomes the goal,
however, it may compete with other learning objectives for primacy in the
design of the course. “Writing-to-learn” spins the assumption that writing
is an isolated act, and asks we use writing as means for developing the
competencies core to our respective disciplines. August 2007, Sac State’s
WAC program sponsored a Faculty Development Retreat that dealt with
writing-to-learn techniques, among other topics. Led by Professor
Christopher Thaiss, participants studied, discussed, and committed to
adopt techniques appropriate for their disciplines. In this presentation
we will review the results of using double-entry journals,
writing-as-a-process, and literature review spreadsheets in an MBA class.
The MBA students used these three tools to develop a memo for a pretend
client.
“Teaching Writing in
the Disciplines: Lessons Learned,” Dana Ferris, English, Sac State
Abstract: The presenter will discuss her experiences in piloting a new
course, English 120S (Writing in the Social Sciences) during the Fall 2007
semester. This initial version of the course enrolled 21 upper-division
and graduate students from a variety of social science majors across the
campus. The presentation will focus on transferable principles and skills
applicable to teaching writing in upper-division and graduate courses and
should have relevance both to Writing Intensive instructors as well as
faculty teaching major courses in their disciplines. Various course
artifacts, including assignments, instructor feedback, excerpts of student
writing, and student comments and survey responses, will be shared in
support of suggestions and recommendations made.
“Reflecting on the
Process of Peer Response Workshops across the Curriculum,” Leahna Barton,
English, Sac State
Abstract: My thesis research shows the importance of integrating peer
response workshops in any discipline where writing is expected. According
to the CSUS faculty writing survey (WAC 2002): 82% of the professors give
students writing assignments; 62% reported poor quality of student
writing; and 56% face challenges in helping students to improve writing.
Theory suggests peer response workshops give students opportunities to
become better readers and writers. Sharing my research may be insightful
for instructors from any discipline. Often instructors claim they have
tried peer response workshops, but they did not work. I have found that
certain components must be integrated in the peer response process. My
findings show: the valuable resource of peer response; the necessity of
training students in peer response; the reflective component as a critical
thinking accountability measure. When students are required to reflect on
peer’s suggestions, critical thinking takes place during the revision
process which improves writing. I will provide handouts for the reflective
response component which can be used in any discipline
1:00-2:00 CONCURRENT SESSION III
2007-2008 National WAC/WID Survey: A Discussion of How WAC
Programs Can Support Faculty across the Disciplines
(Orchard I)
Christopher Thaiss and
Tara Porter, University Writing Program, UC Davis
Abstract: In this presentation, we will provide an overview of results from a new
study of WAC/WID programs across the US and Canada. This is the most
comprehensive survey of WAC/WID programs taken in the past two decades
(since McLeod, 1987). This current WAC/WID survey evaluates the
components of Writing Across the Curriculum in community colleges, 4-year
colleges, and Universities. We sent invitations to over 2,500
institutions and anticipate over 1,100 returns by April 2008. Questions
measure program assessment, director title and duration, program emphases,
sources of funding, program support (writing center, technology, library,
etc), and faculty development. Following the survey overview, the
presenters will facilitate a discussion to determine what WAC program
components appealed most to faculty members across the disciplines.
The Role of Grammar in the Teaching of Writing: Higher Order
Concern, Lower Order Concern, or No Concern at All?
(Orchard II)
Stephen Cook, English,
Sac State
Fiona Glade, English,
Sac State
Cathy Gabor, English,
Sac State
Virginia Kidd,
Communication Studies, Sac State
Annie Scharf, English,
Sac State
Jeremy Trimble,
English, Sac State
Abstract: Writing Centers in their many forms are at the heart of the
current debate over whether to teach grammar at all and if so, how to
offer instruction. Suggestions range from traditional drills and exercises
to critiquing sentence-level concerns only in the context of a student's
papers to rejecting the idea of teaching sentence structure
altogether. Adherents of the latter insist that students will learn
correct sentence construction by reading and modeling what they see
professional writers do while traditionalists make the case for repetition
and drilling in much the same way as athletes train and musicians
practice.
A panel of six -- Fiona Glade, Virginia Kidd, Cathy Gabor, Annie Scharf,
Jeremy Trimble, and Stephen Cook -- will explore this question in a
roundtable format and as an extension of a conversation begun in the CSUS
WAC Newsletter. Expect a spirited and frank discussion of the role of
grammar in the teaching of writing and most especially, of the degree to
which tutors in Writing Centers should explore sentence-level concerns
with students under their tutelage.
Teaching Writing in the Disciplines: Part II
(Orchard III)
“Increasing Visual
Literacy through Service-Learning Reflections,” Vanessa Arnaud, Foreign
Languages, Sac State
Abstract:
This presentation explores the concept of visual literacy, defined as the
ability to interpret images as well as to generate images for
communicating ideas and concepts. The purpose of my paper is to stimulate
interest in using visual enhancements in teaching and to examine how a
learner’s visual skills could work in combination with the development of
his or her reading and writing skills.
I will focus on a
service-learning project completed this Fall 07 with students in the
Honors Program. I arranged for my students to participate in an
“Intergenerational Celebration” at Hart Senior Center. In class, my
students
explored
ideas of education and self-development through close readings of texts,
including Confucius, Plato, Montaigne, and Virginia Woolf. They then
stepped outside of the texts and met with senior citizens who gave them
lessons about the school of life.
Students were encouraged
to critically reflect on the ideas and values of education posed by
different generations, thinkers and cultures through a visual assignment.
I will conclude by sharing some student examples of the visuals that they
generated to communicate the idea of “being educated.”
“A Study of Effective
Methodologies of Writing in the Sciences,” Thor Barrera, Chemistry, Sac
State
Abstract:
In the Scientific world there is much debate as to whether or not our
writing is legible. By this I do not mean simply writing in the sense that
one can read our work, but rather comprehend our work. Most students who
enter the college today are under read in their academic career. Worse
yet, is their ability to write in the level expected of them by their
professors. Why is this? A suggestion is that the methodology and
proficiency of writing we obtain in our education; mirrors the teaching
methodology within the area of the curriculum. The proposal suggests that
problems with writing and reading in the sciences are a direct result of
the interaction between students and their environment. The mentalities
and motivations associated with each discipline and how they interact with
their textual support. Textual evidence in the writing of Professors, pre
and post professional status shows that this has been the case for a long
time, it is not a recent development. Strategies to encourage student
writing in the sciences is critical, and are discussed in the body of work
to be presented.
“Writing in a
Professional Physical Therapy Education Program,” Brad Stockert, Physical
Therapy, Sac State
Abstract: The Professional Physical Therapy Program at California
State University, Sacramento is a 2 ½ year graduate experience. Students
are admitted as a cohort and take courses together for four consecutive
semesters. During the first semester of the second year students are
assigned a term paper on a topic in Pathology. The students are given
specific content guidelines for the paper and the grading rubric. The
papers are graded using the content rubric which does not include criteria
related to grammatical issues. When the papers are returned the students
can “fix” the content related issues and re-submit their papers in order
to improve their grade. However, in order to improve their grade they must
“fix” the content and respond to all of the grammatical issues noted. If
the student makes the requested changes in content and grammar they
receive the higher score. The same students have a class the next semester
that requires them to: 1) submit their Pathology term paper with all
content and grammatical corrections (whether or not they choose to
re-submit their paper for re-grading the prior semester; 2) convert the
term paper into a PowerPoint presentation; and 3) give the presentation to
the first year students in the program. Students provide the instructor
with an electronic copy of the corrected Pathology paper and the
PowerPoint presentation. The instructor “burns” the papers and companion
presentations onto a compact disc and distributes the disc to the
students.
Refreshments and snacks available in the Forest Suite
throughout the conference.
|
