2 The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing University of Minnesota 612-625-0791 www.wec.umn.edu I. Writing Plan Cover Page Please fill in the gray areas on this form. 2/1/17 Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted Sp 2014, First edition submitted Fall 2010 College of Biological Sciences WEC Unit Name N/A College of Biological Sciences Department College Sarah Hobbie and Leslie Schiff Professors WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title [email protected]and [email protected]5-6269 and 5-8653 Email Phone Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Date: January 24, 2017 If Vote: / # yes # total Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other- please explain): A draft of the plan was sent out to all CBS faculty; they were given one week to provide feedback. Correspondence included the statement, “If you do not provide feedback, we will assume that you approve of the plan as drafted." Feedback was incorporated into the final version of the plan.
Transcript
2
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
I. Writing Plan Cover PagePlease fill in the gray areas on this form.
2/1/17
Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted Sp 2014, First edition submitted Fall 2010
Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition.
Date: January 24, 2017 If Vote: / # yes # total
Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other- please explain):
A draft of the plan was sent out to all CBS faculty; they were given one week to provide feedback. Correspondence included the statement, “If you do not provide feedback, we will assume that you approve of the plan as drafted." Feedback was incorporated into the final version of the plan.
WEC Implementation Process Semester/Year-Semester/Year # participated / # invited
Introduction to WEC in Nature of Life F12, S13, S 15, S16 25-30 each /
CBS TA training F14, 15 and 16 60 each /
Meetings with Foundations instructors S 13, F13, S15 5 each /
Meetings with New WEC liaisons 3 meetings F16, one S17 4 each /
Honors Support Course F/S every year 50-65 per
term /
DUGS meeting to discuss ratings F15 most recent 8 /
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
4
III. Signature Page Signatures needed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Please fill in the gray areas on this form.
If this page is submitted as a hard copy, and electronic signatures were obtained, please include a print out of the electronic signature chain here. WEC Faculty Liaison Sarah Hobbie and Leslie Schiff Professors
WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title
Signature Date Department Head/Chair
NOT APPLICABLE
Print Name Title
Signature Date
Associate Dean John Ward
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education
Print Name Title
1/31/2017
Signature Date
5
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu IV. Writing Plan
Narrative, 3rd Edition
Please retain section headers and prompts in your plan.
Introductory Summary: Briefly describe the reason(s) this unit (department, school, college) become involved in the WEC project, the key findings that resulted from the process of developing this plan, and the implementation activities that are proposed in this Writing Plan, with particular attention to the following questions: what is new in this 3rd edition of the Writing Plan? What, if any, key changes have been made to the 2nd edition? What key implementation activities are proposed in this edition of the Writing Plan? (1 page maximum).
The College of Biological Sciences is one of the few WEC units that is engaged as an entire college and has been implementing a writing plan as a single unit. The decision to participate in WEC as a unit grew out of the recognition that diverse disciplines within the biological sciences have shared goals for writing instruction and student writing abilities. Further, the vertical curriculum, with shared foundational coursework, required a shared writing plan if we were to think about disciplinary writing as a developmental set of abilities.
We achieved five goals in implementing the first edition of the CBS writing plan:
(1) Introducing CBS students to the WEC process as freshmen, (2) increasing the number of CBS WI courses (and thus making the requirement that all students take a WI course in their major achievable and enforceable), (3) improving writing instruction in laboratory courses, (4) improving support for students writing their senior theses, and (5) supporting teaching of writing by faculty and TAs through workshops. We were successful in achieving the goals of the first writing plan; key activities included conducting a survey of writing instruction in CBS laboratory courses, piloting TA training in writing instruction, increasing the number of CBS WI courses (and increasing student compliance with the requirement to take a WI course in the major), developing a seminar to support seniors completing their Honors Thesis; and offering workshops for faculty and TAs (with WEC staff).
We achieved six goals in implementing the second edition of the CBS writing plan:
(1) Developing a CBS TA training in writing instruction, (2) developing 5-minute in-class exercises using student writing samples, (3) holding workshops for faculty around aspects of writing instruction, (4) developing improved writing assignments and instruction in BIOL 2XXX, (5) continuing conversations with Freshman around the WEC program, and (6) increasing the number of WEC-rated assignments. As of spring semester 2017, all of these goals will have been met.
For the 3rd edition of the CBS WEC process, our planned new activities revolve around three major overarching goals, with a number of specific activities aimed at achieving those goals:
1. Growing Demand for Writing Instruction continue offering the CBS TA training and Honors Support Course hold discussions with the CBS Major DUGS regarding right-sizing the number of WI Course offerings pilot writing to learn activities in large-enrollment courses offer two workshops related to writing instruction in large-enrollment courses offer an informational lunch for faculty considering offering a WI course develop support resources for faculty mentoring students in WI Directed Research, towards improving
writing outcomes develop a Best Research Paper award for undergraduates
2. Integrating New Faculty Members into the WEC Process
offer a workshop focused on the CBS writing abilities for new faculty 3. Maintaining Engagement with WEC by all Faculty
arrange visits to each CBS department by Pamela Flash and the WEC liaisons to engage individual units within the college with WEC
6
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Section 1: DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC WRITING
CHARACTERISTICS
What characterizes academic and professional communication in this discipline?
XX There have not been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan.
There have been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan. (Discuss these explicitly.)
The following reflects the CBS faculty’s evolving list of the characteristics of effective scientific writing. This list has incorporated the characteristics described in EEB’s second plan. Obviously, there are multiple genres aimed at a variety of audiences, so not every piece of writing would be expected to evidence each of these characteristics.
· Cohesive: Arguments contribute to a conceptually logical narrative, building from one point to the next.
· Evidence-centered: Ideas and conclusions are based on research, its results and analysis, rather than the scientists as actors in producing that research.
· Internally consistent and adequately evidenced: Arguments and conclusions are logically based on data, either one’s own or from the body of relevant scientific literature.
· Framed in terms of foundational concepts and ideas: Arguments acknowledge and build on the conceptual contributions of others. Much scientific writing includes a description of a hypothesis based on current knowledge in the field and interprets newly generated data in light of other published work.
· Synthetic: Arguments or conclusions are based on the analysis and synthesis of the scientific literature, pulling together ideas and results from multiple sources.
· Underscores the idea that knowledge is conditional and nature is variable: The writer recognizes and appreciates that research findings depend on the unique characteristics of the system being studied. Variability is inherent in natural systems and must be considered and acknowledged when generalizing or applying results to other systems.
· Accurate/precise in the description of biological processes: Wording is unambiguous; terminology is used appropriately; writing avoids teleology and anthropomorphism.
· Overt: Ideas are presented in a comprehensible (reader-friendly) manner, taking into account the intended audience.
· Persuasive to specific audiences: Writing is persuasive to the targeted audience, be it lay, political or scientific.
· Concise: Arguments or descriptions are direct and to the point.
· Replicable: Procedures and findings are presented completely and concretely to allow others to replicate them.
· Organized using typical scientific formats: For example, research reporting is organized in terms of an Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion, and incorporates graphics and tables with appropriate and informative legends (captions).
Section 2: DESIRED WRITING ABILITIES With which writing abilities should students in this unit’s major(s) graduate?
XX There have not been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan.
There have been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan. (Discuss these explicitly.)
7
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
By the time they graduate, students in the College of Biological Sciences will have had opportunities to become proficient in the following writing abilities:
Novice (developed throughout the undergraduate curriculum, beginning in 1XXX and 2XXX courses)
· Write concisely, avoiding unnecessary language or information
· Use grammar, tone, and terminology that are appropriate for the intended audience (e.g., avoid jargon when writing for lay audience)
· Describe observations and procedures concretely (avoiding ambiguous language or subjective characterizations)
· Write with biological accuracy (i.e., precisely, using proper terminology, and without teleology or anthropomorphisms)
· Use the appropriate scientific template when necessary to structure assignments (e.g., scientific papers, diagnostic keys)
· Interpret, construct, integrate, and properly caption and format figures and tables
· Create cohesive narratives that are structured to flow logically from one point to the next
· Recognize the unique characteristics of scientific writing in articles
Intermediate (developed in core 3XXX courses and upper-division electives)
· Formulate research or thesis questions that are appropriate in scope and topic
· Argue logically and persuasively, using appropriate evidence
· Analyze for cause and effect
· Use writing to develop and deepen thinking
· Work and write collaboratively (e.g., provide constructive peer review)
· Write in a style that focuses on results (rather than on those who obtained the results)
· Effectively revise and/or self-edit written work
Advanced (developed primarily in upper-division electives)
· Select appropriate (i.e., peer-reviewed) sources from the primary and secondary literature; interrogate those sources by evaluating them for logic, consistency, and soundness; and acknowledge those sources appropriately
· Develop independent, logical conclusions by synthesizing information from disparate sources, including original data and published studies
· Recognize the importance of variability in biological systems in the design and interpretation of research and in the synthesis of findings across studies
· Write credibly and persuasively to a variety of assigned audiences, using terminology that is appropriate for the intended audience
8
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu Section 3: INTEGRATION OF
WRITING INTO UNIT’S
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM
How is writing instruction currently positioned in this unit’s undergraduate curriculum (or curricula)? What, if any,
course sequencing issues impede an intentional integration of relevant, developmentally appropriate writing
instruction?
XX There have not been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan.
There have been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan. (Discuss these explicitly.)
During the time period of the CBS 2nd Edition Writing Plan implementation, efforts were made to harmonize coursework among the 7 undergraduate degree programs in order to facilitate movement between them as students find their passions and refine their academic interests. The major requirements are largely parallel through the first three years, with most of the ‘major-specific’ coursework being taken at the 4xxx level. Even those 4xxx courses are shared as elective options in various majors. This vertical curricular structure, with branching (yet extensive sharing) at the tips of the tree, highlights the need for a college-wide approach to writing instruction. The 7 majors within CBS were the first to develop a “WI bucket” in the course management system, ECAS, to identify a set of options to meet the upper-division WI ‘in the major’ requirement. The 29 courses within this bucket have a variety of designators, highlighting the departments from which they derive, but any student can take any one of these to meet the requirement.
Section 4: ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT WRITING
What concerns, if any, have unit faculty and undergraduate students voiced about grading practices? Please include
a menu of criteria extrapolated from the list of Desired Writing Abilities provided in Section II of this plan. (This
menu can be offered to faculty/instructors for selective adaptation and will function as a starting point in the WEC
Project’s longitudinal rating process.).
There have not been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan.
XX There have been substantial revisions to this section of the Writing Plan. (Discuss these explicitly.) In July, 2014, a team of three independent raters (two from inside the discipline, and one a writing specialist) scored capstone-level writing collected from CBS. Raters used a four-point criterion-referenced scale, assessing student works as “insufficient,” “approaching sufficiency,” “sufficient,” or “more than sufficient” for capstone- level writing for each criterion provided by the unit (this list is drawn from the unit’s Writing Plan). No cumulative scores were given. Prior to rating student writing, raters were provided a “training” session by a faculty member drawn from inside the unit. During this session, criteria were discussed and anchor papers were rated. After the rating session, raters were debriefed on the student work and rating process.
Rating results indicated that students performed better on higher order writing abilities (such as inference and synthesis), but still had challenges (also noted at the initial rating in 2008) with abilities related to working with and describing data (using statistics, developing strong figures, tables, legends). The results were discussed in a meeting of the Directors of Undergraduate Studies and at the CBS Educational Policy Committee. They were also discussed in strategy sessions with a small working group of faculty involved in the Foundations in Biology series. Based on the results, changes were made to some of the writing assignments and instruction in Foundations in Biology, as well as
9
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
in the Biol 4960H thesis writing support course.
Section 5: SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, including REQUESTED SUPPORT, RELATION TO PREVIOUS
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES, and SUSTAINABILITY PLANS
What does the unit plan to implement during the period covered by this plan? What forms of instructional support
does this unit request to help implement proposed changes? What are the expected outcomes of named support?
How do the implementation plans of the 3rd edition Writing Plan relate to implementation activities from the 1st and
2nd edition Writing Plans? What has been successful? What was not successful? How do implementation plans build
on what was learned from the first year of implementation? How do implementation plans anticipate the ongoing
application of this final edition Writing Plan?
How will the unit move toward ownership of the implementation process after the end of eligibility for WEC funding?
When needed, what will be sources of funding and resource support? How will ongoing evaluation and improvement
of the Writing Plan take place?
Summary of Past (2nd Edition) Writing Plan Activities
The CBS 2nd Edition Writing Plan focused outlined seven objectives:(1) developing a CBS TA training in writing instruction, (2) developing a CBS-wide rubric menu, (3) developing 5-minute in-class exercises using student writing samples, (4) holding workshops for faculty around aspects of writing instruction, (5) developing improved writing assignments in BIOL 2XXX, (6) continuing conversations with Freshman around the WEC program, and (7) increasing the number of WEC-rated assignments. The outcomes of these goals are as follows. As of spring semester 2017, all of these goals will have been met. Regarding #2, the CBS-wide rubric, although we did not develop a single rubric, we have developed a list of ratable criteria (Appendix I) that can be used as the basis for developing rubric criteria. Furthermore, multiple models for rubrics now exist within the college, including the one used to evaluate Honors theses (see below).
Developing CBS TA training in writing instruction
Leslie Schiff and Sarah Hobbie, in collaboration with Pamela Flash, developed a TA training that is now required of all Teaching Assistants for CBS courses. It is offered in the fall, usually about several weeks after the semester begins (the biggest challenge with holding the training has been to find a time that doesn’t conflict with lab courses and other departmental and program trainings, orientations, and workshops). The training, offered by Hobbie and Schiff, has been held every fall from 2014-2016 and draws about 40-60 participants each time. In response to evaluations, the length has been trimmed from 3 to 1.5 hours and the content has narrowed to focus on three topics: (1) Responding to Student Writing for Revision, (2) Evaluating Student Writing (Grading), and (3) Detecting, Avoiding, and Handling Plagiarism.
Developing a CBS-wide rubric menu
Some faculty expressed an interest in a CBS-wide rubric to help guide assessment of student writing. Schiff and Hobbie, with help from Pamela Flash, have compiled a number of models for rubrics that are being used in the TA training, with the focus of discussion around trade-offs and personal preferences. Over the next year we intend to develop some adaptable/adoptable options, taking advantage of the CBS writing abilities that have been used in the
10
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
WEC rating of student writing. We also propose to adapt the thesis assessment rubric for more general use by
honors/non-honors students who write about research.
Developing 5-minute in-class exercises using student writing samples
Anika Bratt, a graduate student in EEB, was hired to help develop in-class exercises using student writing samples. She developed six workshops, focused on issues that faculty had identified as particularly difficult for students during previous editions of the writing plan, synthesis and identifying sources. Each workshop comes with a lesson plan, handout, and powerpoint presentation. Workshops cover the topics: Identifying Sources (primary vs. secondary sources), Identifying Sources (online sources), Defining Synthesis (2), and Practicing Synthesis (2). Many of the workshops make use CBS student samples. These materials will be introduced to faculty during a workshop in Spring 2017 (see following).
Holding workshops for faculty around aspects of writing instruction
During spring 2017, Pamela Flash will facilitate two workshops for CBS faculty, instructors, and graduate students. One will be focused on using 5-minute workshops for writing instruction and the other will focus on rubrics and grading.
Developing improved writing assignments in Foundations in Biology
Hobbie and Schiff held three meetings with the instructional staff for the two-semester Foundations in Biology series. Through these discussions, it became clear that instructors and students alike were dissatisfied with writing instruction in these courses, mainly because the assignments did not provide students with authentic writing experiences. While the writing of laboratory reports was staged to teach students how to write the different sections of a scientific paper, the actual writing that students did was not authentic to writing a scientific paper. For example, students were asked to write up the methods for techniques that in a “real” scientific paper would be described only briefly (e.g., in a few sentences). This resulted in students providing “filler” text that would never appear in a scientific paper, frustrating both students and instructors. Through conversations with the WEC liaisons, the BIOL 2XXX/3XXX instructors established a goal of improving the authenticity of writing assignments in these courses, as well as providing students with more guidance on activities such as reading scientific papers and preparing figures.
Changes in the course sequence were significant. In the first semester of the Foundations sequence, instruction shifted to having students spend more time reading and analyzing published papers. This includes studying the content of the papers (analyzing what is found in different sections of journal articles), evaluating the writing style, and discussing the choices authors make when presenting their research findings (for example: describing their data in a sequence that creates a strong logical flow). After studying published papers, students focused on making quality figures and writing up their results. In the first semester, students also developed a research question and wrote a proposal for a research project they would like to carry out in the second semester of the sequence.
In the second semester, Foundations students continued reading and discussing published papers, both to refine their experimental planning and for further evaluation of figure formats and writing style. The major writing assignment was a research paper describing their project, written section by section beginning around the middle of the semester. Moodle workshops facilitated peer review: students reviewed two other drafts and received feedback on their own draft. They submitted a revised draft to their graduate TA for (low stakes) grading and additional feedback, then assembled and revised their final paper for submission by the end of the semester. In addition to writing individual papers, each group of students produced a poster describing their project. Feedback
11
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
on draft posters was provided in class by graduate TAs and postdoctoral research mentors; the final posters were
presented to fellow students and other guests at one of several poster sessions.
Continuing conversations with Freshman around the WEC program
Schiff and Hobbie visited the Nature of Life course several years to introduce CBS freshman to WEC. NOL is a course that all CBS freshman are required to take and an introduction to WEC was one of several different sessions that freshman could opt to attend during one class period. During their visit the WEC liaisons led a discussion of why scientists write, the characteristics of scientific writing and how they differ from characteristics of writing in other disciplines, and how to navigate writing assignments for success. Note that the structure of the NOL course has now changed so we are no longer participating in the course.
Increasing the number of WEC-rated assignments.
In 2010, 10 samples of capstone work were rated as part of the EEB first edition writing plan. The following year, 16 samples, representing each of the 7 CBS majors, were assessed during the first edition plan rating for the college as a whole. One of the goals of the 2nd edition writing plan was to increase the number of WEC-rated assignments in order to generate more compelling data around which to make change. In 2014, 43 samples of capstone writing were assessed. These represented equivalent sets of samples from honors and non-honors students, as well as each of the 7 majors. This increase in samples required two full days of rating.
Summary of 3rd Edition Writing Plan Activities to be Continued from 2nd Edition
We plan to continue two activities from the 2nd Edition plan that have proven useful to TAs and students, respectively.
A Sustainable Model for CBS TA Training (continued from 2nd edition)
The ongoing CBS TA Training has been very successful, as evidenced by favorable evaluations from participants. Therefore we aim to continue offering the training each fall. However, in 2016, a number of comments emerged for the first time, questioning the relevance of the training for BIOL 100X TAs. BIOL 100X is a large service course for non-majors. Prior to the 2017 training, we will communicate with the BIOL 100X instructors and those of other non-majors service courses and either (1) modify the training to make it relevant to TAs for those courses or (2) eliminate the requirement that TAs for BIOL 100X take the training. Schiff and Hobbie will offer the training in 2017 for the last time, with the participation of Koepp and Snell-Rood to ensure a smooth transition to the new liaisons. Going forward, we plan to track the students who complete the training, and provide formal letters of completion that can be leveraged as the students apply for future teaching-related activities.
CBS Honors Support Course (continued from 2nd edition)
The two-semester Biol 4960H/4961H course sequence provides writing instruction, scaffolding of drafts, and opportunities for authentic review and revision for CBS undergraduates completing an honors thesis based on directed research. The sequence is required of all CBS students in the UHP program and it is undertaken in their senior (final) year. Some of the key features include:
12
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Opportunities for individual student reflection and classroom conversation to identify the challenges and opportunities of thesis research and undertaking a large, complex, and high stakes formal writing project. These conversations and opportunities for metacognition disabuse students of misconceptions about the writing process and product, and help them develop identities as scientific writers.
“How to” class periods focused on various thesis parts (methods, legends, results narrative, posters, discussion) using samples from the literature and de-identified samples from archived student theses. Particular emphasis is given to writing areas that pose challenges based on rating results (figures/legends/writing about data). For a number of years now, the class has incorporated a “5-minute” workshop on the characteristics of effective synthesis (developed by Sarah Hobbie). More recently, the class has included a workshop on epistemology developed as part of collaborative NSF TUES II grant (DUE-1225608) including colleagues at Duke University, Morgan State and UNC-CH: Understanding the Role of Writing in Promoting Learning and Engagement in Diverse Undergraduate Thesis Writers. The goals of the epistemology workshop are to unpack how evidencing what is known/not known in science contributes to constructing an effective argument.
Scaffolded assignments offer students the opportunity to write in stages, revisit their work, and revise in response to critical feedback. Students complete a draft of their thesis introduction/literature review in the Fall, and after one round of peer review it is read by an official faculty reader who is a content-outsider. This provides students with the opportunity to see themselves as expert and to engage in more authentic revision because they understand what a biologically literate ‘outsider’ knows and doesn’t. Faculty mentors with content expertise do not read the draft until it has undergone additional revision in response to feedback.
A shared rubric is used to norm expectations of student authors, faculty readers and research mentors. Course instructors communicate expectations with research mentors and readers in order to shape higher order feedback (over copy-editing).
Based on student feedback, data from the triennial WEC rating of student writing, and annual evaluation of student theses for an NSF grant initiative, the course continues to evolve to better meet student needs.
Summary of New 3rd Edition Writing Plan Activities
Sarah Hobbie and Leslie Schiff have been co-liaisons for implementation of the 2nd Edition Writing Plan. For the 3rd edition, liaison responsibilities will be transitioned to Emilie Snell-Rood (EEB) and Deanna Koepp (GCD). For the 3rd edition of the CBS WEC process, our planned new activities revolve around three major goals: (1) addressing the growing demand for writing instruction imposed by an increasing CBS enrollment, (2) integrating new faculty members into the WEC process, and (3) maintaining engagement with WEC by all faculty. Below, we address our planned activities in each of these areas.
Growing CBS Enrollment
CBS hopes to grow its enrollment over the next four or five year by as many as 100 students. If the college is successful, more students will need to take WI courses in the major and there will be more large-enrollment sections and courses, compounding the challenges associated with offering quality writing instruction. To address these challenges, we propose several activities.
13
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Right-Sizing WI Course Offerings
We propose to facilitate a discussion among the WEC Liaisons, the CBS Major DUGS, and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education. The meeting will take place during a regularly scheduled DUGS meeting, and the aim will be to model the number of WI courses needed in each major that will allow students to complete the requirement that all UMN students take two upper-division WI courses, with one of them in their major. This will be part of a broader discussion on the CBS WEC curriculum, optimizing class size for student learning, and associated graduate TA support.
Piloting Writing to Learn Activities in Large-Enrollment Courses
CBS is participating, in collaboration with colleagues at Duke University and the University of Michigan, in a multi-institution NSF grant. The five-year project is titled, “Accelerating the pace of research and implementation of writing-to-learn pedagogies across STEM disciplines” (DUE-1524814: 2015-2020). One of the project’s primary goals is to develop and assess the efficacy of writing-to-learn pedagogies that can be feasibly implemented in large-enrollment STEM classes. In this way, the project furthers a goal articulated in CBS’s previous edition Writing Plans.
Online platforms will be used (at each of the three institutions) to facilitate submission of short writing assignments that target critical scientific concepts, peer-review against a faculty-generated instructional rubric, revision, and self-assessing reflection (in the form of a short revision memo). A key feature of the research design is that instructional faculty will not be responsible for assessing the responses to these assignment prompts. Rather, they will assess the efficacy by measuring improvement in conceptual understanding through independent classroom assessments.
At the University of Minnesota, the writing-to-learn pilot will be engaged in Biol 2002 in 2017. As indicated above, the previous iteration of this grant program involved assessment of student writing completed in the directed research capstone against writing outcomes articulated by faculty engaged in the WEC program. For this new program, faculty in the Biology Teaching and Learning department (BTL) (Kirkpatrick and Gibbens) are helping to conceptualize local implementation, and are working with Schiff, Pamela Flash, and other members of the WEC staff to design writing prompts, rubrics, and valid conceptual assessments with which to test the efficacy of the intervention. Schiff, Kirkpatrick, Gibbens, and the WEC staff will meet regularly with BTL faculty involved in the implementation to troubleshoot. As data are gathered at Minnesota and the other two campuses, Schiff and Flash will engage CBS faculty in the Foundations courses and others, to think about how the findings might be leveraged to engage students in writing to learn in other parts of the CBS curriculum.
In Summer 2018, the University of Minnesota will hold the first of three annual multi-institution institutes in order to disseminate assessment results and models of best practice to teams of STEM faculty from participating and non-participating post-secondary institutions.
Workshop: Writing Instruction in Large-Enrollment Courses (WEC staff)
We request that the WEC staff provide two new workshops, Designing writing assignments for large enrollment courses and Responding to writing and grading in large enrollment courses.
Lunch Discussion: Considering Developing or Inheriting a WI Course?
We request funds to hold two lunches (one on the Mpls campus and one on the St Paul campus), facilitated by outgoing WEC liaisons Schiff and Hobbie, for faculty considering proposing WI course or inheriting a WI course. During these lunches, we will discuss the requirements for WI courses, how to write an effective WI course proposal, and answer any questions. Both Hobbie and Schiff have served on the Campus Writing Board and are well-qualified to lead such discussions.
14
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Improving Outcomes in WI Directed Research
A series of conversations with the DUGS, EPC, and CBS student board will discuss ideas to improve the process associated with WI directed research. We will draw on the current Honors Support Courses (see above) to create incentives and resources to help faculty improve writing instruction in WI Directed Research. For example, lists of best practices, example papers and rubric examples, and suggested timelines can be made a more integral part of the WI-DR process. In addition, in years 2 (pilot) and 3, working with a quarter time graduate TA, we will roll out mandatory student writing groups that will serve as a support team for writing that helps to keep students on a writing timeline. We will design the writing group process in collaboration with the DUGSs, but expect that the process will include (1) training of TA by Pamela Flash, (2) incorporation of the expectation that students participate in writing groups into the Directed Research contract, to incentivize participation, and (3) assessment via a survey of participants, and during the tri-annual ratings of papers. During the pilot year, we will randomly select half of the WI-Directed Research students to participate in writing groups, so that we can compare papers between participants and non-participants. The WI-DR contract and associated process will be revised accordingly following the second year of implementation (writing plan year 3). We expect that funding for a TA in the second year of implementation (writing plan year 3) will be contingent upon demonstration of efficacy during the pilot year.
Student Award for Best Research Paper
A large number of CBS students complete research papers, either as part of Directed Research efforts, UROP, Honors, REU experiences, etc. We propose to develop a student award of $250 for best research paper in the College. The exact mechanisms for determining eligibility, soliciting nominations, and selecting the paper will be determined in consultations between the WEC liaisons and the DUGSs.
Integrating New Faculty into WEC
Workshop for New Faculty: Writing Abilities (WEC Staff)
CBS has done several cluster hires, either on its own or in partnership with other units (BTI), and is currently hiring additional faculty members. As a result, the college has a number of new faculty who arrived since the original WEC process began. Although Schiff and Hobbie have attempted to introduce WEC to new faculty in the past, those efforts consisted of “information dumps” and were not effective at engaging new faculty with WEC or generating excitement around writing instruction. Therefore, for the 3rd edition implementation plan, we aim to offer a teaching-enrichment luncheon/workshop, in partnership with WEC program staff, to introduce new faculty to WEC. This lunch-time workshop will be a discussion of writing abilities in biology, modeled after the M1 workshop that is part of the 1st edition of the writing plan. This workshop will be used to introduce new faculty to the writing abilities, with the aim of increasing explicit consideration in courses, and to revisit the abilities and determine whether they need revision.
Maintaining Engagement of all Faculty
Visit to Faculty Meetings of all CBS Departments: Ratings Discussion (WEC Staff)
To increase engagement with the WEC process by individual units within the college, we propose half-hour discussions of the results of the ratings of student writing (Appendix I) in faculty meetings in each of the five CBS departments. The discussions will be facilitated by Pamela Flash and will be attended additionally by one of the WEC liaisons. These discussions will be used to generate hypotheses regarding which writing abilities students find most challenging, compare those hypotheses to data, and use those comparisons as a way to generate discussion about strategies for teaching difficult abilities. These discussions will also be used to generate ideas about faculty needs
15
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
and desires for the future related to writing instruction. Discussions might result in modest resource requests in 2nd or 3rd year of plan.
Timeline of Proposed Activities
Proposed Activity Timeline Resources Required Lead
Honors Support Course Ongoing, every spring semester
None Schiff
CBS TA Training Ongoing, beginning of every fall semester
None WEC Liaisons
Right-Sizing WI Courses Spring 2017 None WEC Liaisons
Visits to Faculty Meetings Spring 2017 Service: WEC staff to attend faculty meetings
Flash and WEC Liaisons
Piloting Writing to Learn Activities in Large-Enrollment Courses
Fall 2017 (pilot) and continuing in future terms
None Schiff and Flash
Lunch Discussion: Considering Developing or Inheriting a WI course?
Fall 2017 (one in St. Paul, one in Mpls.)
Funding: Lunches for 20 (10 in St. Paul, 10 in Mpls)
Schiff and Hobbie
Improving Outcomes in WI Directed Research
Spring 2018 (pilot) and every spring thereafter if effective
Funding: 25% RA Support for coordinating writing groups in 2017-2018, 2018-2019
Flash will train RA; RA will report to WEC Liaisons
Workshop: Writing Instruction in Large-Enrollment Courses (WEC staff) #1
Spring 2018 Service: WEC Staff to lead workshop
Funding: Snacks
Flash
Workshop: Writing Instruction in Large-Enrollment Courses (WEC staff) #2
Spring 2018 Service: WEC Staff to lead workshop
Funding: Snacks
Flash
Student Award for Best Research Paper
Spring 2018 and every spring thereafter
Funding: $500 ($250/award for 2 years)
WEC Liaisons
Workshop for New Faculty Spring 2018 Service: WEC staff to lead workshop
Funding: Lunches for 15
Flash
16
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Section 6: PROCESS USED TO CREATE THIS WRITING PLAN
How, and to what degree, were a substantial number of stakeholders in this unit (faculty members, instructors,
affiliates, teaching assistants, undergraduates, others) engaged in providing, revising, and approving the content of
this Writing Plan?
This revised writing plan was developed by CBS WEC co-liaisons Leslie Schiff and Sarah Hobbie, in consultation with the incoming WEC co-liaisons, Deanna Koepp and Emilie Snell-Rood, and WEC Director Pamela Flash, based on input from two major sources. First, Schiff and Hobbie identified potential needs during implementation of the second Writing Plan through discussions with individual faculty and observations of changing demographics among CBS majors and faculty. Second, in January 2017, a survey was sent to all CBS faculty aimed at determining their needs for writing instructional support (Appendix II). 68 people responded to the survey. Based on input gained via these two mechanisms, we identified the activities in Section 5 as important foci for the revised writing plan. A draft plan was circulated to all CBS faculty for feedback, which guided revision and preparation of the final draft.
Section 7: CONNECTION TO STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Briefly describe how the ideas contained in this Undergraduate Writing Plan address the University's Student
Learning Outcomes (http://www.slo.umn.edu).
The following list takes advantage of our “desired writing capabilities” to document some of the ways our evolving writing-enriched CBS curriculum will help graduates achieve the University’s broad Student Learning Outcomes.
SLO Writing capability
Can identify, define, and solve problems Analyze and interpret published work, gauging the efficacy of evidence
Can locate and critically evaluate information &
Have mastered a body of knowledge and a mode of inquiry
Analyze and interpret published work, gauging the efficacy of evidence
Present and interpret data in context
Can communicate effectively Synthesize ideas in new ways and organize them logically
Write compellingly to audiences within and outside of the discipline
Communicate in an overt and reader-friendly manner
Communicate information in a manner that is precise and concise
Develop strategies to effectively revise and/or self-edit written work
Understand the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression across disciplines
Synthesize ideas in new ways and organize them logically
Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning Work and write collaboratively
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Appendix I. 2014 rating criteria used to rate upper-division writing of graduating majors
Method: A team of three independent raters (two from inside the discipline, and one a writing specialist) scored capstone-level writing collected from this unit. Raters used a four-point criterion-referenced scale, assessing student works as “insufficient,” “approaching sufficiency,” “sufficient,” or “more than sufficient” for capstone- level writing for each criterion provided by the unit (this list is drawn from the unit’s Writing Plan). No cumulative scores were given. Prior to rating student writing, raters were provided a “training” session by a faculty member drawn from inside the unit. During this session, criteria were discussed and anchor papers were rated. After the rating session, raters were debriefed on the student work and rating process.
# Criteria
1 Presents information in a concise manner.
2 Uses terminology that is appropriate for intended audience (e.g., defines technical terms when writing for lay audience).
3 Describes procedures in a way that can be replicated.
4 Does not use anthropomorphisms or teleological arguments.
5 Utilizes scientific template (abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion) or another appropriate format.
6 Makes appropriate choices about which data to represent visually.
7 Figure and/or table titles and legends are appropriately informative, i.e. they orient reader to visual’s content.
8 Directly communicates a scientific narrative using an overt logical structure: moves from problem, to procedure, data, conclusions, and back to target problem.
9 Describes significant gaps in scientific knowledge by articulating a target question or problem and describing its significance.
10 Uses appropriate statistics and describes them according to conventions in the literature.
11 Draws logical conclusions from synthesis of evidence.
15 Identifies potential problems with data and/or research approach.
16 Identifies alternatives to given interpretation and approaches.
18
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
Appendix II. Results of Survey to Assess Faculty Needs for Support for Writing Instruction.
Before drafting the Writing Plan, a needs assessment was conducted to determine faculty interest in various
potential activities to include in the 3rd Edition. Following are the results of that survey.
19
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
20
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
21
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-625-0791
www.wec.umn.edu
V. WEC Research Assistant (RA) Request Form This form is required if RA funding is requested. If no RA funding is requested please check the box below.
RAs assist faculty liaisons in the WEC Writing Plan implementation process. The specific duties of the RA are
determined in coordination with the unit liaison and the WEC consultant, but should generally meet the
following criteria: they are manageable in the time allotted, they are sufficient to their funding, and they have
concrete goals and expectations (see below).
RA funding requests are made by appointment percent time (e.g., 25% FTE, 10% FTE, etc.). Appointment times
can be split between two or more RAs when applicable (e.g., two 12.5% appointments for a total of 25% FTE
request). Total funds (including fringe benefits when applicable) need to be calculated in advance by the
liaison, usually in coordination with administrative personneli.
Please note that, outside of duties determined by the liaison, WEC RAs may be required to participate in
specific WEC activities, such as meetings, Moodle discussion boards, and surveys.
RA Name (Use TBD for vacancies): TBD
RA Contact Information: email TBD, phone TBD
Period of appointment (Semester/Year to Semester/Year): Fall/2017 to Spring/2019
RA appointment percent time: 25%
Define in detail the tasks that the RA will be completing within the funding period:
We request an RA to coordinate a pilot project that aims to create writing groups among students who are involved in
Writing-Intensive Directed Research. The RA will form groups, create guidelines and best practices for writing groups, help
groups schedule meeting times, and check up on groups to ensure that they are functioning effectively. The RA will also
assess the groups at the end of each semester to determine their effectiveness and to modify the pilot project accordingly.
Define deadlines as applicable (please note that all deadlines must be completed within the funding period):
N/A
Describe how frequently the RA will check in with the liaison:
Bi-weekly
Describe in detail the RA’s check-in process (e.g., via email, phone, in-person, etc.):
In-person meetings at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester; email check-ins in between times.
i An example for determining funding for appointments can be found on the WEC Liaison Moodle. This is for planning and example purposes
only and cannot be used to determine final budget items for the Writing Plan.
No RA Funding Requested
VI. WEC Writing Plan Requests Unit Name:
$51,080.00
Semester 1: Spring 2017 Semester 2: Fall 2017 Semester 3: Spring 2018Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost
Rationale for costs and their schedule of distribution
Semester 1: Spring 2017 Semester 2: Fall 2017 Semester 3: Spring 2018Service Qty Service Qty Service QtyOther 5 Workshop 3
Total Financial Request:
25% Graduate RA for facilitate writing support groups for WI-DR
$240.00
$9,756.00
$9,756.00
$250.00
$200.00
Description and rationale for services
Financial Requests (requests cannot include faculty salary support) drop-down choices will appear when cell next to "semester"is selected
College of Biological Sciences
Service Requests drop-down choices will appear when a cell in the "service" column is selected
See details in Writing Plan. Graduate students RA rates include 3% annual cost-of-living increase.
Lunch for New Faculty: $12/person x 15
Lunches for Developing WI Course Information Share: $12/person x 20 people
Best Student Paper Award$180.00
25% Graduate RA for facilitating writing support groups for WI-DR
Snacks for 2 workshops related to teaching writing in large-enrollment courses; $100/workshop x 2
Spring 2017: visits by Pamela Flash and WEC liaisons to faculty meetings for each of the five CBS departments. Spring 2018: facilitation by Pamela Flash of two workshops related to teaching writing in large enrollment courses; one workshop for new faculty.
Semester 4: Fall 2018 Semester 5: Spring 2019 Semester 6: Fall 2019Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost
