2 The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing University of Minnesota 612‐626‐7639 www.wec.umn.edu I. Writing Plan Cover Page Please fill in the gray areas on this form. Date May 14, 2016 First Edition of Writing Plan Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted SEM/YR, First edition submitted SEM/YR Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management (ESPM) WEC Unit Name Forest Resources/Soil, Water, & Climate/FWCB/BBE CFANS Departments College Kristen C. Nelson Professor WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title [email protected]612‐624‐1277 Email Phone Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Date: 05/13/16 If Vote: 26 / 26 # yes # total Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other‐ please explain): The Writing Plan was ratified by a vote in the Annual Meeting, email message support by a few faculty not attending, and Department Head signatures. (Sixteen faculty members did not respond to the email request for a vote.)
Transcript
2
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
I. Writing Plan Cover Page Please fill in the gray areas on this form.
Date May 14, 2016
First Edition of Writing Plan
Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted SEM/YR, First edition submitted SEM/YR
Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management (ESPM)
Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Date: 05/13/16 If Vote: 26 / 26
# yes # total
Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other‐ please explain): The Writing Plan was ratified by a vote in the Annual Meeting, email message support by a few faculty not attending, and Department Head signatures. (Sixteen faculty members did not respond to the email request for a vote.)
3
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
II. Unit Profile: Environmental Science Please fill in the gray areas on this form.
Number of Tenured and Tenure‐Track Faculty:
Comments about Faculty/Instructors: This is a major supported by multiple departments. In addition to 42 tenure/tenure track faculty, 4 Research Fellows participate in instruction of ESPM courses. Of the tenure/track faculty some of a higher teaching % than others.
Total # students enrolled in major as of Spring/2016
Total # students graduating with major AY 2015‐16
ESPM 241 69
Other majors supported by the Depts.
FNRM 59 13
FWCB 145 33
SSM 39 25
BBE 107 40
Total: 591 180
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ WEC Process Date # participated / # invited
WEC survey 9/14/15‐10/05/15 186 / 370
Meeting #1 10/30/15 15 / 43
Meeting #2 01/22/15 12 / 43
Meeting #3 02/12/16 10 / 43
Meeting #4 03/11/16 7 / 43
Implementation Survey 04/12/16 24 / 43
/
/
/
/
4
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu 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 Kristen C. Nelson Professor, Interim ESPM Coordinator
WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title
05/13/16
Signature Date Department Heads/Chair – See Appendix A for signatures from all Department Heads responsible for the ESPM major and Associate Dean Signature Alan Ek
Head and Professor, Forest Resources Dept.
Print Name Title Carl Rosen
Head and Professor, Forest Resources Dept
Print Name Title Susan Galatowitsch
Head and Professor, Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation Biology Dept.
Print Name Title Shri Ramaswamy
Head and Professor, Bio‐based Products and Bio‐systems Engineering Dept.
Print Name Title Associate Dean Michael White
Asso. Dean Academic Programs and Faculty Affairs
Print Name Title
*Please see Appendices A.1 and A.2 for signatures.
5
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu IV. Writing Plan Narrative, 1st 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, key findings resulted from the process of developing this plan, and the implementation activities are proposed in this Writing Plan. (1/2 page maximum)
The Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management (ESPM) major is an inter‐departmental undergraduate major with five tracks. Initial interest in the WEC project was generated from ESPM faculty as they discussed successes and challenges of teaching undergraduates writing within their disciplines. At the curriculum level, two primary motivations included enhanced writing coordination across the tracks and increased instructional consistency regarding specific written products. Students work with writing in the sciences (social and natural), policy (decision making and argument), and management (plans and evaluation).
Through surveys and discussion, ESPM instructors revealed: 1) we believe writing remains important in future careers (professionals, academic and students), 2) faculty see room for improvement in student writing, 3) there are writing abilities we currently address that students’ still struggle with and some abilities they struggle with that we don’t address but could, 4) faculty agreed on six central writing abilities that are important across the disciplines.
For the first year of the WEC plan, the Integrated Core Courses and Select Courses within each Track are the starting points. These faculty members are anticipated to become mentoring nodes as we build an ESPM writing network. To build the network, program initiatives include 2 workshops to develop instructional materials as well as the design and implementation of an annual ESPM TA training. Assessment of the workshops, TA training, and ESPM writing network will be done with students, instructors and TAs through feedback cards, focus groups, and a survey. Writing attributes of particular interest are “developing and implementing brief (5‐minute‐long) and course‐relevant in‐class writing instruction”, “efficient and ethical methods for grading student writing”, “ responding to student writing in a time‐efficient manner”, and “development of assignments that require students to write for specific audiences”.
6
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
Section 1: DISCIPLINE‐SPECIFIC WRITING CHARACTERISTICS What characterizes academic and professional communication in this discipline?
Academics and professionals in our fields identified a range of writing characteristics through the WEC program
survey (Meeting #1 Figure 1). The respondents were most in agreement regarding the relatively low importance of
descriptive writing. The greatest differences emerged with faculty emphasizing the importance of analytical writing
(88%) and professionals emphasizing explanatory writing (73%).
Figure 1. ESPM academic (faculty) and affiliate (professional) identification of top writing characteristics in for the ESPM fields. Faculty response rate 76%/Professional Response rate 38%.
In Meeting #2, faculty continued in discussion about the range of writing characteristics in Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management, summarized below.
1. Logically structured, moving either from claims to evidence, or tracking the evolution (or story) of
data/findings
2. Supported by evidence including science‐based evidence, legitimizers from policy (“the law says…”) or
personal experience.
3. Concise (for example in consulting, an executive summary than cannot exceed 2 pages): tightly written
without redundancy or extra words
4. Descriptive: providing concise technical summary of data
5. Clear: makes apt word choice, precise; conveys intended meaning
6. Appropriate for specific audiences, including public, scientific, planners, elected officials, policy makers,
businesses, children in school groups, farmers, land owners and managers
7. Culturally sensitive: sensitive about the impact of words on issues related to gender, ethnicity, religion
8. Persuasive and compelling advocating a choice, action, outcome, and/or behavior change by addressing
multiple perspectives
9. Synthetic of technical information and data and moves toward recommendations or decision tool (a
targeted model or framework composed of multiple variables and perspectives)
7
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
10. Multimodal: includes prose, graphics, numbers, and charts and maps: visual messaging integrating text
forms with non‐text forms
Section 2: DESIRED WRITING ABILITIES With which writing abilities should students in this unit’s major(s) graduate? In Meeting #1 faculty discussion focused on six writing abilities the ESPM students should have when they graduate. In Meeting #2 these were further refined into six writing abilities with sub‐categories that we agreed to focus on in ESPM. Abilities summary: Upon graduation, students will be able to… 1. Intentionally and sensitively address specific readers
1.1. Set up problems in ways that pique reader interest 1.2 Interpret technical data and translate findings in ways that can be understood by specific audiences 1.3 Write with cultural sensitivity, and avoid alienating audiences by anticipating the impact of word choices on different populations 1.4 Communicate across disciplines in a technically sophisticated way, aware of where one subfield ends and another begins 1.5 Use professional language and specific, technical language where appropriate for audience
2. Describe processes, sites, and data 2.1 Describe sites accurately and objectively and using audience‐appropriate terminology 2.2 Avoid superfluous details 2.3 Create accurate, unbiased descriptions that demonstrate an understanding of the science and its implications
3. Make, and provide evidence for, claims 3.1 Offer a well‐developed thesis 3.2 Search for, select, and use data and examples that readers will find appropriate, adequate, and credible 3.3 Analyze data: distill data and interpret distillation, 3.4 Demonstrate familiarity with scientific process (collecting, analyzing data and testing hypotheses) 3.5 Synthesize information found in primary literature 3.6 Use technical terms accurately 3.7 Make and evaluate impactful and well‐captioned visuals (figures, charts, tables) and provide sufficient explanation for non‐text (visual) messaging 3.8 Cite sources appropriately and correctly to avoid plagiarism
4. Make persuasive recommendations 4.1 Distill key points of science, economics, social or cultural perspectives to make a recommendation 4.2 Advocate for a choice, action, outcome, and/or behavior change by addressing multiple perspectives 4.3 As and when appropriate, add value‐based opinions
5. Organize content logically 5.1 Transition from analysis of results to discussion of implications and making recommendations as appropriate 5.2 Differentiate between claims and evidentiary support 5.3 Organize in ways that logically and cohesively tracks the evolution of ideas e.g,: chronological narrative or story‐style 5.4 Summarize large amounts of background data
6. Revise and proofread 6.1 Revise to ensure that ideas flow logically both within and between paragraphs
8
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
6.2 Demonstrate a command of grammar and composition 6.3 Revise to ensure that sentences are concise and well‐constructed
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?
ESPM is built around an integrated core of classes that stress the linkages among science, management, policy,
education and business initiatives. Each year students take an integrated core class. During the 1st year students
take a combination of communication, basic and applied science, policy, and economic classes, along with liberal
education requirements. In the sophomore year, students select one of five specialization tracks: Conservation and
Resources Management, Corporate Environmental Management, Environmental Education and Communication,
Environmental Science, or Policy/Planning/Law and Society.
ESPM writing across the curriculum was evaluated in two ways, 1) writing within the integrated core that all ESPM
student take in a step‐wise manner over their academic program and 2) key courses within the five tracks. Appendix
B provides a matrix which describes writing abilities that receive explicit instruction in ESPM courses (6 Integrated
Core courses and 15 Track courses) and the instructors’ perception of the proficiency level most students enter the
course (WEC Meeting #3 Matrix).
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 2 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.).
Over the 2015‐2016 Academic Year, ESPM faculty meet four times to evaluate writing within the curriculum and identify an agreed upon list of ESPM writing abilities and evaluation criteria for these abilities (Table 1). The primary faculty concerns about grading writing were the amount of time necessary to provide extensive feedback as well as the difficulty of providing clear writing prompts for classes with wide ranging writing abilities.
Table 1. Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management (ESPM) writing abilities and evaluation criteria, generated in 2015‐16 by the ESPM Faculty based on a review of survey results and four faculty discussions.
Faculty‐generated list of writing abilities expected of
Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management (ESPM)
features can be used to evaluate the student’s ability?)
The text…..
1. Intentionally and sensitively address specific readers
1.1 Set up problems in ways that pique reader interest Sets up problems in ways that pique reader interest
9
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
1.2 Interpret technical data and translate findings in ways that can be understood by specific audiences
Interprets technical data and translates findings in ways that
can be understood by specific audiences
1.3 Write with cultural sensitivity and avoid alienating audiences by anticipating the impact of word choices on different populations
Uses words and phrases that will not inadvertently alienate
intended readers
1.4 Communicate across disciplines to demonstrate an awareness of where one subfield ends and another begins
Communicates across disciplines by demonstrating an
awareness of where one subfield ends and another begins
1.5 Use professional language and specific, technical language where appropriate for audience
Uses professional and technical language rigorously and
correctly in order to align with expectations of intended
audiences
2. Describe processes, sites, and data
2.1 Describe sites accurately, objectively, and using audience‐appropriate terminology
Objectively describes sites, data, and processes using accurate
and audience‐appropriate terminology
2.2 Avoid superfluous details Conveys content as efficiently as possible by avoiding
superfluous words and details
2.3 Create accurate, unbiased descriptions that demonstrate an understanding of the science and its implications
Includes accurate, unbiased descriptions that demonstrate an
understanding of the science and its implications
3. Make and provide evidence for claims
3.1 Offer a well‐developed thesis Offers a well‐developed thesis in response to a well‐defined
question
3.2 Search for, select, and use data and examples that readers will find appropriate, adequate, and credible
Supports thesis or hypothesis using data and examples that
intended readers will find appropriate, adequate, and credible
3.3 Analyze data by distilling it and interpreting the distillation
Analyzes data by distilling it and interpreting the distillation
3.4 Demonstrate familiarity with scientific process (collecting, analyzing data and testing hypotheses)
Demonstrates familiarity with scientific process (collecting,
analyzing data and testing hypotheses)
3.5 Synthesize information found in primary literature Synthesizes information found in primary literature by showing
ways that diverging sources contribute to answering critical
question(s)
3.6 Use technical terms accurately Uses technical terms accurately
3.7 Make and evaluate impactful and well‐captioned visuals (figures, charts, tables) and provide sufficient explanation for non‐text (visual) messaging
Includes impactful and well‐captioned visuals (figures, charts,
tables)
Provides sufficient explanation for non‐text (visual) messaging
3.8 Cite sources appropriately and correctly to avoid plagiarism
Cites sources appropriately and correctly to avoid plagiarism
10
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
4. Make persuasive recommendations
4.1 Distill key points of science, economics, social or cultural perspectives to make a recommendation
Distills key points of science, economics, social, and/or cultural
perspectives in order to make a recommendation
4.2 Advocate for a choice, action, outcome, and/or behavior change by addressing multiple perspectives
Advocates for a choice, action, outcome, and/or behavior
change by addressing multiple perspectives
4.3 Differentiate between a value based argument and an evidence based argument and can discern when each would be appropriate.
Adds value‐based opinions as and when appropriate
Demonstrates writer’s ability to effectively choose between
making value‐based arguments making evidence based
arguments.
5. Organize content logically
5.1 Transition from analysis of results to discussion of implications and making recommendations as appropriate
Transitions from analysis of results to discussion of implications
Makes recommendations that effectively address intended
audience concerns.
5.2 Differentiate between claims and evidentiary support Delineates between claims and evidentiary support
5.3 Summarize large amounts of background data Summarizes large amounts of background data by identifying
trends and anomalies
5.4 Use organizational structures that enhances their writing goal and intended audience
Is organized in a way that enhances writer’s goals and
addresses the intended audience
Moves from question to hypothesis, to testing methodologies,
to impacts and assessment
5.5 Incorporate lower‐level organization devices such as topic sentences and transitional phrases to increase flow within a paragraph
Incorporates lower‐level organization devices such as topic
sentences and transitional phrases to increase flow within
paragraphs
6. Revise and proofread
6.1 Revise to ensure that ideas flow logically both within and between paragraphs
Arranges and transitions between ideas so that they flow
logically both within and between paragraphs
6.2 Demonstrate a command of grammar and composition
Demonstrates a command of grammar and composition
6.3 Revise to ensure that sentences are concise and well‐constructed
Is composed of concise, well‐constructed sentences
11
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
Section 5: SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS, including REQUESTED SUPPORT 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?
ESPM Writing Plan: 1st Year Implementation
In the first year, we want to begin building an ESPM Writing Network through workshops focused on developing instructional materials and development of an annual ESPM Teaching Assistantship training workshop.
To do this, we identified Integrated Core Courses and Select Courses within the Tracks as the starting points for the writing plan (Appendix C). These represent all six ESPM writing attributes across the curriculum, and start with the faculty instructors who indicated interest in the WEC program during Year 1. We anticipate these instructors will eventually become mentoring nodes as we build an ESPM Writing Network across colleagues and teaching assistants in Years 2 and 3.
The ESPM Writing Network begins based on a willingness to participate and a focus on critical writing abilities. To build the network, we decided to focus on a few program initiatives, successfully complete and learn from them, and then move on to build broader initiatives.
The two priorities for instructional support activities that received that greatest support are “hold workshops and/or discussions to help ESPM faculty members and instructors customize tried and true instructional materials” (79% ranked this as the #1 or #2 out of 5 priority) and “develop instructional materials that target a subset of faculty identified writing abilities” (67% ranked this as the #1 or #2 out of 5 priority) (Table 2). To increase the probability of faculty participation in these activities, we will focus our initial efforts on five topics faculty members reported they would definitely and very likely participate in (Table 3).
12
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
ESPM Implementation Survey Report Table 2. The faculty implementation survey results asked respondents to rank clusters in terms of importance indicate to the likelihood of personal engagement in activities related to each cluster.”.
# Answer 1 2 3 4 5 Total
Responses
1
CONTINUE CURRICULAR MAPPING to determine locations and foci of current writing instruction across the ESPM major
5 4 7 8 0 24
2 DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS that target a subset of faculty identified writing abilities
12 4 5 3 0 24
3
HOLD WORKSHOPS and/or DISCUSSION to help ESPM faculty members and instructors customized tried and true instructional methods
6 13 4 1 0 24
4
ORGANIZE EVENTS FOR STUDENTS to highlight relevance of writing to academic/professional applications of ESPM degrees and to highlight capstone‐level projects
1 3 8 11 1 24
5 Other: Describe your alternate/additional ideas below
0 0 0 1 23 24
Total 24 24 24 24 24 ‐
Table 3. The faculty implementation survey results in response to the following question, “How likely would you be to participate in the following activities?”
13
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
# Question Definitely Very likely Unsure Not likely Total
Responses
1 Submit additional instructional materials from the courses you teach for curricular mapping and analysis
6 10 5 2 23
2 Participate in discussion and analysis of instructional materials and faculty‐articulated writing outcomes
4 12 5 2 23
3 Develop and adopt assignments that require students to write for specific audiences
8 8 6 1 23
4
Develop and adopt writing assignments/materials that help students demonstrate cultural awareness and sensitivity in their writing
2 11 6 4 23
5 Develop and adopt activities and tools that help students create and caption visuals
8 3 6 6 23
6 Develop and adopt a tool that communicates shared ESPM writing expectations to students across the major
1 8 11 3 23
7
Participate in a workshop focused on developing and implementing brief (5‐minute‐long) and course‐relevant in‐class writing instruction
8 13 1 1 23
8 Participate in a workshop focused on responding to student writing in a time‐efficient manner
8 8 5 2 23
9 Participate in a workshop focused on efficient and ethical methods for grading student writing
6 12 5 0 23
10 Refer TAs to an annual training focused on assignment design and assessment strategies
9 8 3 3 23
11 Participate in regular, informal, departmental lunchtime discussions of writing and writing instruction
2 7 10 4 23
12 Help to facilitate a senior‐project exhibit event
1 3 10 9 23
13 Help organize a panel of professionals who can talk about writing they do in ESPM‐related fields
1 3 12 7 23
14
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
Proposed topics in order of intensity of interest:
1. Participate in a workshop focused on developing and implementing brief (5‐minute‐long) and course‐relevant in‐class writing instruction (n = 21/24)
2. Participate in a workshop focused on efficient and ethical methods for grading student writing (n = 18/24)
3. Refer TAs to an annual training focused on assignment design and assessment strategies (n = 17/24)
4. Participate in a workshop focused on responding to student writing in a time‐efficient manner (n =16/24)
5. Develop and adopt assignments that require students to write for specific audiences (n = 16/24)
Overall, in the first year, we want to find out if an ESPM writing network core group can be established across
course instructors and TAs such that we develop new instructional materials, evaluate their effectiveness, enhance
student learning about writing, and are prepared to expand the network and writing abilities addressed in the
second year.
We are relatively confident a core group of faculty and their TAs will participate in Year 1 because they have
expressed a willingness to improve on specific writing abilities within their course (Appendix B) and indicated that
they were ‘definitely or very likely’ to participate in specific activities.
ESPM Writing Plan Activity Objectives for Year 1 are the following:
Design and implement two faculty workshops focused on four writing attributes,
Evaluate the workshops with feedback cards from individual participants,
Design and implement an ESPM Teaching Assistantship Workshop, Evaluate the annual teaching assistant
workshop with feedback cards from individual participants, and
Evaluate the new instructional products and network development through focus groups as well as a final
survey of instructors, teaching assistants, and students in the respective classes.
These objectives function as their own developmental reflection and evaluation. All the participants examine their
own writing and/or instruction of writing, then they create and recreate a product (e.g. assignment, instructional
activity), then they provide individual reflections/feedback to be used in the next round, then they reflect as a group
developing social learning and social capital for the individuals and the network, and finally we do a slightly more
quantitative survey assessment of personal, instructional, and group outcomes. It is unlikely that we will see long‐
term writing and curricular outcomes in the first year.
The activities, timetable and responsible parties for the ESPM Writing Plan Year 1 2016‐17 are as follows:
Fall/Spring Workshop design WEC liaison‐TA‐consult WEC staff x
implementation WEC TA/liaison x x
Fall/Spring Focus Group design WEC liaison‐TA‐consult WEC staff x
implementation WEC TA‐liaison x x
15
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
analysis/write up WEC TA‐liaison x x
TA Workshop design WEC liaison‐TA‐ consult WEC staff‐
DGS x
implementation WEC TA‐liaison x analysis/write up WEC TA‐liaison x
Survey design WEC liaison‐TA‐ WEC staff x x
distribute x x x analysis/write up x x
Prepare Year 2 Writing Plan
x
Budget Justification
Instructor Workshops (Fall and Spring 2 hr.) will focus on the previously identified writing abilities. All the
participants will bring one assignment they would like to revise to meet the particular writing abilities. During the
course of the workshop they will draft the new assignment, receive feedback on it from colleagues, and identify the
dates they will use the assignment in class. Budget request is for lunch and beverages during the workshop ($900 =
30 people x $15 x 2 workshops) and RA hours to assist with design, implementation and documentation of the
workshop.
Focus Groups (Fall and Spring 1 hr.) focus on instructors who have implemented their new writing assignment. They
will gather to share what worked, what didn’t work, where there are shared experiences across courses and where
there are unique insights. They will identify how these new instructional tools could strengthen student writing in
ESPM. They will identify new or refined capacities they possess as a group and best ideas for sharing this with other
colleagues or implementation in other courses for particular courses.
Budget request is for beverage and a treat ($50 = 1.67 x 30 people) and RA hours to assist with design,
implementation, data analysis and reporting.
The TA Annual Workshop will be developed over the fall semester and implemented in the spring semester. We
would like to use this workshop to spread writing training across scales in the instructional hierarchy of ESPM and
invest in human capital that may have a long‐term pay‐off for our field. Initial plans are to identify TAs in the
respective Fall and Spring courses who will be working with writing instruction through mentoring, feedback, and/or
assessment. These graduate students will conduct a modified model of the Instructor workshop, with the intent to
provide a revised syllabi section/set of rubrics/assignment/mini‐lecture/etc. This will be done in consultation with
the instructor of the course with the commitment that it will be tested out in the next semester. Our objectives with
this workshop are to 1) expand the example instructional tools produced in the 1st year, 2) benefit instruction in
future classes with revised material, 3) build human and social capital among the graduate cohort that my improve
future TA/RA capacity, and indirectly, 4) improve graduate student writing in their own field. Budget request is for
lunch and beverages ($450 = 30 people x $15 x 1 workshops) and RA hours to assist with design, implementation
and documentation of the workshop.
16
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
The Surveys will provide feedback and help us evaluate the programming we have done in Year 1. The primary
factors we are interested in are effectiveness of the instructional materials, feedback on the workshop designs,
influence on instruction and personal capacity in relation to the previously identified Year 1 writing ability targets,
network attributes (e.g. weak/strong ties, resource exchange, trust), and ideas for Year 2. Possible surveys, of
varying length based on the target group, include students and instructors trying out a new instructional
assignment, workshop participants, ESPM faculty, department and graduate program administration, WEC staff.
Surveys will be online and analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative narratives. Budget request includes
RA hours to assist with design, implementation, data analysis and reporting.
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?
Faculty members, representing two departments (Department of Soil, Water, and Climate; Department of Forest
Resources) were the primary participants in Meeting #1 ‐ #4 discussions, but others participated in the preliminary
survey, the course survey, and the implementation strategies survey. We made an effort to have participation by
faculty members who represent all five tracks and the ESPM Coordinating Committee. Faculty participation was
primarily from ESPM Coordinating Committee members and faculty members who teach the integrated core
courses and ESPM designator courses. The first year of the writing plan we hope to expand participation to other
faculty members interested in enhancing their own course design, Teaching Assistants for ESPM courses, and
student focus groups at the end of Fall 2016 and Spring 2017.
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 are the University’s Student Learning Outcomes: 1. Can identify, define, and solve problems 2. Can locate and critically evaluate information 3. Have mastered a body of knowledge and a mode of inquiry 4. Understand diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies 5. Can communicate effectively 6. Understand the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression across disciplines 7. Have acquired skills for effective citizenship and life‐long learning
In Year 1, we will address “5. Can communicate effectively” through multiple courses, each with additional Student
Learning Outcomes. For example, combined the ESPM Core Courses address most of the SLOs (ESPM 1001, 1011,
2021, 4021W, 4041W). Instructors for three of these courses will participate in designing improved writing
assignments and addressing diverse audiences. In addition, several instructors, with representation from all of the
tracks, expressed a willingness to participate in the Year 1 Writing Plan. The primary SLOs for these courses are “1.
Can identify, define, and solve problems” and “2. Can locate and critically evaluate information”.
17
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
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/2016‐Spring/2017 RA appointment percent time: 25%
Define in detail the tasks that the RA will be completing within the funding period:
Communicate with faculty, TAs, and WEC staff about workshop, focus group, survey, and scheduling;
Draft workshop, focus group, and survey material in consultations with WEC liaison, WEC staff, and faculty;
Analyze focus group and survey data in order to inform the ESPM program and 2nd Year report on the
products and outcomes of 1st Year Initiatives: products, participant feedback, early writing network
development, needs for next year.
Define deadlines as applicable (please note that all deadlines must be completed within the funding period):
September 07, 2016 – May 15, 2017
Communicate with faculty, TAs, and WEC staff about workshop, focus group, survey, and scheduling;
Draft fall workshop agenda (October 15th), fall focus group agenda (November 15th), spring workshop
agenda (Feb 15th), spring focus group agenda (March 15th), and survey materials (March 30th) in
consultations with WEC liaison, WEC staff, and faculty
Analyze and produce a descriptive report on focus group (Nov 30th/April 30th) and survey data (April 15th) in
order to inform the ESPM program and 2nd Year report
Describe how frequently the RA will check in with the liaison:
Weekly
No RA Funding Requested
18
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education
Center for Writing
University of Minnesota
612‐626‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
Describe in detail the RA’s check‐in process (e.g., via email, phone, in‐person, etc.):
In‐person, email, and phone as appropriate to the tasks.
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.
VI. WEC Writing Plan Requests Unit Name:
$17,346.00
Semester 1: Fall 2016 Semester 2: Spring 2017 Semester 3:Item Cost Item Cost Item Cost
