ENGLISH 1100 & 1200FALL 2011

REMINDERS--SYLLABUS1. Make use of online resources:

http://www.ecu.edu/english/2. Include course outcomes as

emailed on your syllabus (SACS/FCIE Committee)

3. Link assignments to those outcomes in your syllabus

Project 4: Writing to Persuade For this assignment, you will locate 4-6 additional sources that address the question you raised for the

previous assignment. Following the guidelines in Writing: A Guide for College and Beyond you will then compose an argument in response to the question.

Your goal in gathering these additional 4-6 sources is to become aware of some of the different perspectives from which the question can be approached. You will need to find several perspectives along a scale of perspectives; go beyond just “pro” and “con.”

You must also determine an appropriate audience and format for your argument. In other words, you need to determine who should or would want to hear your argument and what form of writing (letter? website? article? essay?) would be most effective in reaching that audience.

Your argument should be +/-1800 words, and you must turn in copies of your sources with your work. You will also submit a brief cover letter with the final draft (details about this letter will be provided in class).

**I will not grade your project if you do not turn in drafts, copies of sources, and your cover letter. Failure to submit peer review feedback will negatively affect your grade.

The red, underlined portions of this assignment description correspond to several of the outcome goals for English 1100:

Discover significant questions to explore and address via writing Explore the many different purposes of writing, including writing to reflect, analyze, explain, and

persuade Practice drafting and revising Increase your awareness of organizational strategies and your ability to apply them Become attentive to how audience and purpose affect content, tone, and style Incorporate sufficient and appropriate details and examples both from your experiences and from

secondary research

REMINDERS--SYLLABUS

3. Attendance— You must accept university-excused

absences (students are required to make up work).

You cannot count absences before the day that a student registers for the class.

You should normally accept written medical excuses from licensed medical professionals.

If you plan to have a system in which students’ grades will suffer after a certain number of absences, put this policy in writing in the syllabus.

REMINDERS--SYLLABUS4. Office hours – 5 per week, regardless of

# of classes taught5. New Retention Standards6. WI Model (#1 Academic Writing)

REMINDERS—SYLLABUS/POLICIES5. Disruptive Students/Class

Conduct• Provide, in writing, information about what

appropriate classroom behavior entails and what it excludes.

• Call campus security if students become threatening or abusive in class or in your office.

• For less aggressive, but still disruptive, behavior follow the procedure outlined in the Faculty Manual, Part V, Sect. Y (http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/facultymanual/manual.htm

DISRUPTIVE ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR PROCESS The Steps—An Overview1. Private verbal warning describing the behavior of

concern to the student, explaining that it is inappropriate, and asking the student to stop

2. Written warning indicating that the student will be removed from the course if the behavior does not cease

3. Discussion of the situation with the Department Chair or designee.

4. Meeting with student, Chair/designee, and instructor, if it is decided to remove the student from the course.

5. Written notification of the decision to remove the student from the class, with a copy forwarded to the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

***Please see Part V, Section I-Y of the faculty manual for more details.

REMINDERS—POLICIES/SYLLABUS6. Grade Appeals (Part V of Faculty Manual)

Appeals will not be considered unless based upon one or more of the following factors: An error was made in grade computation. Standards different from those established in written

department, school or college policies, if specific policies exist, were used in assigning the grade.

The instructor departed substantially from his or her previously articulated, written standards, without notifying students, in determining the grade.

Only the final course grade may be appealed. The grade assigned by the instructor is assumed to be

correct and the student appealing the grade must justify the need for a change of the grade assigned.

OTHER REMINDERS Library orientations in both 1100 and

1200 Thursday AM GTA meetings (9:30) in the

Studio (Bate 2005)—All are welcome! Composition Committee Professional

Development Workshops—possible topics for fall (dates & details forthcoming) Integrating/Using Sources Teaching with Portfolios

First-Year Writing Studio

ASSESSMENT RESULTS—INTEGRATING SOURCES

English 1200, Spring 2011

ENGLISH 1200 ASSESSMENT TOOL Five-question, use-of-source quiz,

administered to 20 sections of English 1200 at the start of the semester and again at the end of the semester.

Same quiz/same assessment as Spring 2010. The repeat was designed to test the impact of meetings/workshops last AY.

Two-part questions Identify if there is a problem (acceptable vs.

unacceptable use of source). If there is a problem, rewrite to fix it.

SAMPLE QUESTIONOriginal Source:

These two minds, the emotional and the rational, operate in tight harmony for the most part, intertwining their very different ways of knowing to guide us through the world.

—From page 3 of the book Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman

Use of Source:According to Daniel Goleman, two different minds, one emotional and one rational, function in close harmony and mix their different ways of knowing to help us through the world (3).

__Acceptable_X_Unacceptable [Paraphrase is too close to the original]

Rewrite (if applicable):

CRITERION FOR SUCCESS (FROM 2010 ASSESSMENT REPORT)

At the end of English 1200, students will effectively identify improper source use 70% of the time and partially or wholly correct source use problems at least 70% of the time.

OVERALL IDENTIFICATION, ERROR, AND KEY PRE-POST RATES--2011

Pre-test Post-test

•58% correct identification•19% entirely correct rewrites•50% partially correct rewrites•2.1 rewrite errors per quiz•1.3 successful revisions per quiz

•62% correct identification•31% entirely correct rewrites•43% partially correct rewrites•1.9 rewrite errors per quiz •1.7 successful revisions per quiz

IDENTIFYING SOURCE-USE PROBLEMS-2011Percent correct identifications per quiz item % Correct

PRE% Correct POST

#1 (improper paraphrase)37 37

#2 (missing source information--author and page) 82 88#3 (improper paraphrase) 34 39#4 (improper direct quotation) 46 52#5 (correct-no error) 86 90

ADDRESSING SOURCE USE PROBLEMS--2011

*NEW ANALYSIS THIS YEAR

Attempted revisions related to the problem

PRE-TESTS POST-TESTS

#1 (improper paraphrase)34% 39%

#2 (missing source information--author and page) 95% 98%#3 (improper paraphrase)

43% 43%#4 (improper direct quotation)

87% 80%

REVISIONS PER TEST BY TYPE--2011

Average # of Errors per Test by TypeAv. PRE Av.

POST

1. Sufficient Restructuring or Rewording of Paraphrase to Avoid Plagiarism 0.17 0.12

2. Effective Addition of Signal Phrase or Attribution to Author/Source 0.68 0.82

ERRORS PER TEST BY TYPE--2011Average # of Errors Per Test by Type

Av. PRE Av. POST

1. Improper Paraphrase--Wording or Structure Too Close to Original 0.45 0.34

2. Insufficient or Improper Information for In-text Citation 0.58 0.48

SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENT

POST-TEST COMPARISON

Average # of Revisions per Test by Type2010 2011

1. Sufficient Restructuring or Rewording of Paraphrase 0.04 0.12

2. Effective Addition of Signal Phrase or Attribution to Author/Source 0.87 0.82

SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENT

POST-TEST COMPARISON

Average # of Errors Per Test by Type

2010 2011

1. Improper Paraphrase--Wording or Structure Too Close to Original 0.41 0.34

2. Insufficient or Improper Information for In-text Citation 0.51 0.48

SPRING 2010 VS. SPRING 2011 ASSESSMENTOVERALL IDENTIFICATION, ERROR, AND REVISION RATES POST-TEST COMPARISON

Spring 201060% correct identification44% entirely correct rewrites28% partially correct rewrites1.9 rewrite errors per quiz1.7 successful revisions per quiz

Spring 201162% correct identification31% entirely correct rewrites43% partially correct rewrites1.9 rewrite errors per quiz 1.7 successful revisions per quiz

LIMITATIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT

Fewer post-tests—440 pre-tests and 385 post-tests

Decrease in student investment at the end of the semester

Decrease in student investment in the task due to lack of grade and decontextualized work.

No tracking of sections whose instructors participated in the Professional Development Workshop to see if that variable made a difference.

LESSONS OF THE ASSESSMENT Students seem to know something about

integrating sources at the end of 1100. Students in 1200 are getting the message that

attribution is important but are still having trouble determining what to put in in-text citations.

Students still really struggle with the concept and practice of paraphrase.

The emphasis on this issue of paraphrasing at the last orientation meeting and the professional development workshops on paraphrasing/citing sources appear to have had little impact on student performance on the quiz.

CURRICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS Clarify for students what needs to be in a citation. Emphasizing the

purposes of citation might help. Feel free to use the slideshow in the “class downloads” area: http://core.ecu.edu/engl/fyw/writing/index.htm

Look at and discuss multiple examples of successful and unsuccessful paraphrases, and do so at multiple points in the 1200 course.

Have students practice paraphrasing repeatedly, especially with sources that they will be using in their 1200 assignments.

Incorporate graded “mini” assignments that include paraphrase (mini-portfolio in 1100)

Devote class time to a peer review session and ask students to focus particularly on source-use areas.

Have students complete the “Paraphrasing” tutorial currently being developed by the composition program. This may be *required* in the spring.

Use/review the quiz in class—a new one will be developed for the next assessment cycle. Feel free to use the quiz file in the “class downloads” area: http://core.ecu.edu/engl/fyw/writing/index.htm

ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Create an assessment that involves more

authentic student writing as the basis for assessment.

Track the variables/actions more carefully. Raise the bar for “entirely correct” revisions

(aim for 55% or higher entirely correct for repeat of this assessment).