Pre/Views: High-Impact Practices: WIC Spring Theme

By Vicki Tolar Burton, WIC Director

New research on college writers published in the journal Across the Disciplines has identified a short list of high-impact teaching practices that correlate with students’ academic success and positive college engagement. The practices are: interactive writing processes, meaning-making writing tasks, and clear writing assignments. Read more


OSU Writing Center Becomes OSU Writing Studio

By Addison Koneval and Amanda Kelner, WIC Interns

The OSU Writing Center is undergoing a major transformation from a one-to-one consulting model to what is called a studio model. Writing Studio director Dennis Bennett shared with us those new changes and the ways those changes affect WIC faculty and students. Read more

 


A New WIC Model for a Growing Major

By Dan Smith and Jessica Just, Food Science and Technology

Several years ago the Food Science and Technology Department confronted a crisis in the delivery of our writing intensive course (WIC). For years we had been able to offer just one WIC per year, with a typical enrollment of about 30 students. However, following a doubling of undergraduate enrollment in the major in the three preceding years, by 2014 the enrollment in this class became far too large to effectively meet the goals of WIC, yet the department lacked teaching resources to offer it more than once per year. A new design was required to meet students’ need for a compelling writing intensive course and to minimize the burden on a faculty whose members were already stretched in their teaching assignments. Read more


WIC Spring Lunch Series 2017

By Claire Roth, WIC GTA

We are happy to announce our Spring Lunch Series schedule for 2017. This year’s topics center around an exciting publication in Writing Across the Disciplines scholarship, and we look forward to the stimulating conversations that will occur. All lunches will be held on Fridays in Milam 215 from 12 to 1pm. As always, delicious American Dream pizza and beverages will be provided. Read more


Nominate Your Best Student Writer for the WIC Culture of Writing Award in Your Discipline

By WIC Team 

As spring term arrives, please remember to nominate outstanding undergraduate writers for WIC Culture of Writing Awards. Recognizing exceptional student writing communicates to our students and the university that good writing matters in every discipline. To nominate outstanding undergraduate writers, interested units (schools, departments) seek nominations from the faculty and select the best paper from the major. Read more


Quick WIC: High-Impact Practices, Transfer, and Multilingual Writers

By WIC Team

Are you invested in writing across the curriculum pedagogy, but don’t have time to read the related scholarly articles? Quick WIC provides citations and annotations for articles related to teaching writing across the disciplines. The WIC Team uses the rhetorical precis annotation format to bring you writing pedagogy scholarship in brief. Read more

By Vicki Tolar Burton, WIC Director

New research on college writers published in the journal Across the Disciplines has identified a short list of high-impact teaching practices that correlate with students’ academic success and positive college engagement.  The practices are:

  • Interactive writing processes
  • Meaning-making writing tasks
  • Clear writing assignments.

The WIC program will unpack these high-impact practices at four WIC spring lunch seminars. At the April 14 lunch, we will introduce the practices in more detail, along with deep approaches to learning that can be applied to any course, including writing-intensive courses. We will also share multi-modal strategies for implementing the practices.

One of the interactive writing processes that supports learning is peer feedback on drafts. On April 21, faculty will learn about feedback available at OSU’s new Undergraduate Writing Studio. (Read more about this in our interview with Studio Coordinator, Dennis Bennett in this issue.) On April 28, Kay Sagmiller, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning will support the practice of using meaning-making writing tasks with an interactive presentation on cognition and learning. The final lunch seminar on May 5 brings us more ideas on interactive writing processes using technology, including Instructional Technology Specialist Tasha Biesinger and others from Information Services. Please sign up for the lunches, read a rhetorical precis of Paul Anderson, et al’s, “How to Create High Impact Writing Assignments,” or read the full article in Across the Disciplines.

Faculty in majors with growing enrollments will want to check out this issue’s article by Dan Smith and Jessica Just on the new WIC model designed by the Department of Food Science and Technology. Smith and Just share both course design and assessment take-aways in this innovative approach to teaching students to write in their major.

Finally, please be sure your unit plans to honor the top undergraduate writer in each major with a WIC Culture of Writing Award spring term. See the information for nominations in this issue.

Happy Spring!

By Addison Koneval and Amanda Kelner, WIC Interns

The OSU Writing Center is undergoing a major transformation from a one-to-one consulting model to what is called a studio model. Writing Studio director Dennis Bennett shared with us those new changes and the ways those changes affect WIC faculty and students.

As of January 2017, the former OSU Undergraduate Writing Center transitioned into a new pedagogical model and format–the Undergraduate Writing Studio.

Prior to the model shift, the Writing Center followed a “fairly traditional, middle of the road” pedagogical model, said Bennett. Under this model, student writers met with writing assistants for one-on-one conferences that lasted 45 minutes on average. During this time, writing assistants addressed what are known as high to low order concerns; writing assistants guided the session through big picture concerns such as organization, content, and adhering to the assignment before moving on to line level concerns such as sentence structure and grammar and conventions. This is a standard model for a significant portion of post-secondary writing centers across the United States.

The new Undergrad Writing Studio departs from this model in significant ways. First, the Studio no longer offers undergraduate appointments. Students walk in and fill out a form detailing basic student and class/assignment information. Students explain what concerns they would like to address. Flip charts on workstations in the Studio inform studio consultants when students would like to work on their own and when they need help.

The studio model emphasizes real-time feedback and the studio as a workspace. Students are encouraged to bring their assignment sheets, unfinished or unstarted drafts, and come prepared to work. Many students bring their laptops to work on their projects, although it is not required. Bennett says the focus is to “create a space for writing” supplemented by feedback from studio consultants.

“The process itself is cyclical. Students propose some writing that the studio consultant critiques and the student then iterates these changes which they propose once more to the studio consultant and the process continues until the student is satisfied with their work,” he said.

In response to the question, “why did the change occur?” Bennett shared that the move to the Studio model stemmed from a new pedagogical goal. The new model is meant to work two-fold, first by helping students “build competence” through learning to ask for specific help on issues in their work as they construct and edit it. Second, the new model acts to “catch the moment of kairos.” According to Bennett, this means making the writing studio a place to write. So, as questions come up during the writing process, consultants are available to respond to those relevant questions in that very “moment of kairos.” The benefit for students is that they are not just told how to be better writers, they are given the environment in which to do so.

This model moves students away from binge-writing and into incremental, process-oriented writing. Bennett explained that advanced writers tend to use this process naturally. Rather than critiquing an entire paper at once, the writer will ask a friend or colleague to review a small piece of the paper as they are writing it. The studio model simply applies this concept in a collaborative, academic setting. This shift is important for the Writing Studio’s proposed relocation to the OSU Valley Library, which could be as early as next fall; the studio model complements the natural work and study environment of a library.

What is more important is to note what has not changed. The Undergraduate Writing Studio still provides students the same benefits the Writing Center did before the shift. The studio is staffed with mostly student studio consultants, from a variety of majors, including STEM majors, all of whom receive pedagogical training prior to beginning their work at the studio. In addition, consultants receive weekly one-hour training session during the course of each quarter.

Regardless of session-specific changes, consultants continue to offer feedback, support and help on writing issues large and small, providing students with all the attention they require. On the whole, Bennett advocates for “a universal design approach” that allows for flexibility and intentionality when adjusting to student-specific needs.

For example, one common issue for English Language Learners (ELLs) is grammar. An old approach would require the consultant to spend time explaining and pointing out examples. The new model asks students to build independence in the process of collaboration and feedback.

In an instance where a student is struggling with article usage (‘a’ vs. ‘the’), a consultant might say, “I’m noticing issues with articles. Why don’t you highlight all the nouns and we can talk about those.” This approach breaks down a more complex task into smaller, more digestible tasks, helping students build independence, one move at a time. “You have to be more specific and mindful,” Bennett said, but the overarching goal of placing the responsibility on the student to bring forward concerns works regardless of specialized needs.

But what does this all mean for WIC courses? Even previous to the shift, Bennett reported that the Writing Studio has established relationship with WIC faculty to assist WIC students with their work. Then, and now, Writing Studio consultant-WIC student dynamics depend on a balance between student understanding of class material and consultant’s ability to ask process questions. When it comes to discipline-specific content, Bennett said, “the student needs to be the expert,” but “we can still ask questions about what their process is like.” Ultimately though, “the more we know, the more we can help,” Bennett said.

WIC faculty can aid WIC student writing studio sessions by providing their assignment-specific goals and expectations to the Writing Studio and its studio consultants. Bennett encouraged faculty to meet with him in person to share any course materials “so we can review assignment resources and student learning outcomes together and ensure that we’re on the same page.” Because most WIC courses discuss discipline-specific ideas and conventions, professors should contact Bennett and articulate what they would like their students to accomplish at the Writing Studio and how the studio consultants can help achieve these goals.

“The Writing Center [Studio] would love to work with WIC faculty,” Bennett said.

For more information on the Writing Studio’s other resources available to WIC instructors, go to the Writing Center’s Faculty Information Page or contact Bennett directly.

By Claire Roth, WIC GTA

We are happy to announce our Spring Lunch Series schedule for 2017. This year’s topics center around an exciting publication in Writing Across the Disciplines scholarship, and we look forward to the stimulating conversations that will occur. All lunches will be held on Fridays in Milam 215 from 12 to 1pm. As always, delicious American Dream pizza and beverages will be provided. If you have any questions regarding the lunches, please contact the WIC GTA, Claire Roth, at rothcl@oregonstate.edu. Please register for each lunch you plan to attend by clicking here or the link below.


The topics for this year’s series are:

April 14 – “High-Impact Writing Practices & Multimodal Learning”

The WIC Team introduces the ATD’s recent article on High-Impact Writing Practices, a central theme for this year’s lunch series, and explores hands-on multimodal learning.

April 21 – “From Writing Center to Writing Studio: What Faculty Need to Know”

Dennis Bennett, Director of the Writing Center, and associate panel discuss the major transition into the Writing Studio, the reasons behind the change, and what faculty need to know.

April 28 – “Cognition and Learning”

Kay Sagmiller, Center for Teaching and Learning Director, discusses connections between cognition and student learning.

May 5 – “Technology and Interactive Writing Processes”

Instructional Technology Specialist Tasha Biesinger and Information Services partner with the WIC Team to explain how to make the most of Canvas, Eli Review, and other writing technologies.

 

To register for one or more of our lunches, please click here.

By WIC Team 

As spring term arrives, please remember to nominate outstanding undergraduate writers for WIC Culture of Writing Awards. Recognizing exceptional student writing communicates to our students and the university that good writing matters in every discipline. To nominate outstanding undergraduate writers, interested units (schools, departments) seek nominations from the faculty and select the best paper from the major. For each writing prize winner, WIC awards $50, matched by $50 from the unit, for a total of $100. What an excellent way to acknowledge the hard work and talent of our undergraduate writers! If a unit nominates a student, that student receives an award. There is no competition between units.

Once your department or unit has chosen a paper to nominate, fill out the nomination form and submit it via email to Claire Roth by 5:00 p.m. PST, June 2, 2017. The complete policy and submission instructions are on the WIC website. Here are a few tips and models for the award nomination process:

  • Model 1: the academic unit might use the department or school awards committee, who asks faculty to nominate and submit their best undergraduate paper for the year. The committee chooses the awardee.
  • Model 2: the academic unit wants the awardee to be from a WIC course, so one or more WIC instructors select the best paper.
  • Model 3: the top academic writing occurs in a capstone course with a team project. The unit selects the team with the best-written capstone project for the award. When the award goes to a team of four, some units divide the $100 award 4 ways, while other units contribute more than $50 so that individuals will receive a more substantial award.

Because the only way a student at OSU can receive a monetary award is through a deposit in the student’s account, the award is typically given to a student who is currently enrolled. If a student winner has graduated prior to June 2016, additional paperwork and processing time will be required. If possible, submit those nominations as early as possible. In addition, if units would like to receive the award certificate in time for an awards event, include that information and the date of the event with the nomination form. Units with special considerations regarding the due date should contact Vicki Tolar Burton, copying Claire Roth (rothcl@oregonstate.edu).

Student awardees are invited to submit their winning paper to the WIC section of the ScholarsArchive@OSU.

Photo by Lynn Ketchum

By Dan Smith and Jessica Just, Food Science and Technology

Several years ago the Food Science and Technology Department confronted a crisis in the delivery of our writing intensive course (WIC). For years we had been able to offer just one WIC per year, with a typical enrollment of about 30 students. However, following a doubling of undergraduate enrollment in the major in the three preceding years, by 2014 the enrollment in this class became far too large to effectively meet the goals of WIC, yet the department lacked teaching resources to offer it more than once per year. A new design was required to meet students’ need for a compelling writing intensive course and to minimize the burden on a faculty whose members were already stretched in their teaching assignments. The solution, arrived at through internal brainstorming and in discussion with the WIC Director, was to engage the entire faculty in teaching the WIC. We created a new course, FST385 Communicating Food and Fermentation Science, designed to deliver WIC outcomes utilizing an ever changing “hot topics” focus intended to keep the course fresh and permit the involvement of all FST teaching faculty members.

FST385 is offered twice annually, taught in a format of lecture and recitation. Enrollment in the lecture is limited to thirty* students with accompanying recitation sections capped at ten. To provide continuity, the department’s two instructors, following a common syllabus, alternate teaching the lecture. The lecture portion of the course is used to provide examples and practice with different kinds of writing common in our discipline and in the food industry. Writing Science in Plain English by Anne E. Greene is the textbook for the lecture. Greene’s book reinforces our emphasis on conveying science both clearly and concisely, avoiding jargon, and adapting the focus and register (technical level) to meet the needs of the target audience.

Each member of our faculty with undergraduate teaching responsibility offers a recitation for the course, on an approximately three year rotation. Each recitation has a unique theme developed by the instructor who is a “content expert” in that area.  Some themes offered to date include “Raw Milk,” “Eating fora Lifetime of Well Being,” “Flavor Delivery and Product Development,” and “What Defines Craft Beer?” The topics are announced well in advance, so that students can plan to enroll in a session that piques their interest.

The major WIC assignment, a 2000 word literature review paper that is revised following receipt of peer and instructor feedback, is completed in the recitation. Students are given substantial latitude to research and write on a topic of their choosing, requiring only that it relate to the overarching section theme. Recitation instructors deliver a series of lectures in the early weeks of the quarter to provide background to facilitate the students’ research for their paper. The middle third of the class is highly interactive as students develop their paper in three stages: outline, draft, and final paper. Students receive written and verbal feedback on the outline and draft. Additionally, verbal feedback is delivered during a short one-to-one meeting between the student and instructor and provides a time to discuss revision ideas.

The final third of the class seeks to apply the substantial learning that has taken place through the lectures and independent research to the analysis of some unsettled question in the field. Each recitation group selects a contentious issue from within their recitation theme, and frames it as a question for debate. Dividing into “pro” and “con” teams the groups spend about two weeks on research, development of debate scripts, and practicing their delivery. On the last day of the class, all sections come together to stage the debates. The entire department is invited, so that all can benefit from the insights developed on each topic during the quarter.

Instructors are encouraged to choose their recitation themes with an eye to the debate. For example, in the “What Defines Craft Beer?” recitation, students chose to debate the timely question “Is the acquisition of small craft breweries by large brewing corporations bad for craft brewing?” Like the above, the topics the students select often encompass social, economic, political or environmental questions, stretching our students to think about the interface of science and society. The debates tend to be lively, as students often approach the topics with strong preconceptions. The critical thinking involved in preparing to defend a position typically results in students exiting with a much better informed understanding of the issues.

Having taught the FST385 WIC for two years, we have analyzed some data and have preliminary opinions about the outcomes. Several assignments, including the revised paper have been evaluated by a rubric (see below) that assesses five dimensions of the writing: content, organization, reasoning, use of language, and presentation. For each dimension, three levels of achievement were defined: capstone, milestone and benchmark. Our goal has been to have almost all students achieve outcomes at a milestone, or higher, level. We fell short of this goal under the old model. Of 60 students enrolled in the final offering of the old WIC course, only 75% were assessed to have achieved above the benchmark level in the major written assignments, and some 10% of students did not even reach what we would consider a benchmark level performance. Initial results from applying the same rubric assessment to FST385 are very encouraging. Some 84% of students were judged to have achieved at a milestone or better level, with about half judged to have completed these assignments with capstone quality, and almost none falling below benchmark.

Quantified improvements in writing are matched with positive feedback from recitation instructors and students. Students and professors report satisfaction around having in-depth, individual discussions about subject material and several students have commented that the new WIC class provided the first opportunity to discuss their writing with a mentor. The intentionally small recitation size allows for extensive interaction between students and instructor without placing an undue burden on faculty members, while the three year faculty rotation avoids the potential hazard of instructor “burnout” from the intensity of such a course.

Having more than a dozen individuals involved in teaching our WIC presents a challenge to providing consistency of outcomes and equivalence of assessment of student work. To address this, both lecture instructors have assumed the role of orienting the recitation instructors to the goals and standards of the course. Prior to each offering, we jointly score and then discuss papers retained from previous iterations of the course to help calibrate the assessment provided by recitation instructors. That said, we continue to seek ways to more accurately assess our students and welcome suggestions from the OSU WIC community.

In the end, we’re pleased with the opportunity that our growth-induced WIC crisis provided. It has allowed us to rethink the way that we teach students to write about food science and provided a better experience for students to learn food science by writing.

*Thirty is the upper limit of class size allowed for WIC courses. Twenty to twenty-five is more appropriate. The FST use of small recitations assures students of writing feedback. -VTB

FST Rubric for Written Communication in FST

Capstone Milestone Benchmark (and below)
Content

(weight 25%)

Topic is well developed, effectively supported and appropriate for the assignment. Effective thinking is clearly and creatively expressed. Writing is appropriately concise, but complete. Topic is evident with some supporting details; generally meets requirements of assignment. Efficiency of communication could be improved. Topic is poorly developed. Supporting details absent or vague. Trite ideas and/or unclear wording reflect lack of understanding of topic and audience.
Organization

(weight 25%)

 

Writing is clearly organized with effective introduction and conclusion. Each segment relates to the others according to a carefully planned framework Writing demonstrates some grasp of organization with a discernible theme and supporting details. Writing is rambling and unfocused, with main theme and supporting details presented in a disorganized unrelated way.
Reasoning

(weight 25%)

Substantial, logical, & concrete development of ideas. Assumptions are made explicit. Details are germane, original, and convincingly interpreted.

 

Offers somewhat obvious support that may be too broad. Details are too general, not interpreted, irrelevant to thesis, or inappropriately repetitive. Offers simplistic, undeveloped, or cryptic support for the ideas. Inappropriate or off-topic generalizations, faulty assumptions, errors of fact.
Language, Grammar, and Usage

(weight 15%)

 

Writing is free of errors in grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. Paragraphs are well-focused and coherent with a logical connection of points. Voice and style are appropriate for the type of paper assigned. Writing has some errors but these are not too distracting. Paragraphs occasionally lack focus or coherence. The connection of ideas is sometimes disjointed. Voice and style don’t always fit the type of paper assigned. Errors are frequent and distracting, so that it is hard to determine meaning. Paragraphs generally lack focus or coherence. There is not a logical connection of ideas or flow of sentences. Voice and style are not appropriate for the type of paper assigned.
Presentation

(weight 10%)

Report/essay looks neat, crisp, professional.  Tables, figures and citation are effectively and correctly incorporated. Report/essay looks neat but violates some formatting rules. Report/essay looks untidy and does not follow basic formatting rules.

Adapted from Brenau University and Barbara Walvoord, http://www.winona.edu/air/rubrics.htm

Draft Date: 11.11.05, by T. Shellhammer, w/corrections and additions 9/12/06, 4/9/2013 by D. Smith

By WIC Team

Are you invested in writing across the curriculum pedagogy, but don’t have time to read the related scholarly articles? Quick WIC provides citations and annotations for articles related to teaching writing across the disciplines. The WIC Team uses the rhetorical precis annotation format to bring you writing pedagogy scholarship in brief.

 

Creating High-Impact Writing Assignments in WIC Programs

Anderson, Paul et. al. “How to Create High-Impact Writing Assignments that Enhance Learning and Development and Reinvigorate WAC/WID Programs: What Almost 72,000 Undergraduates Taught Us.” Across the Discipline, Vol. 13, Dec. 2016.

In their article “How to Create High-Impact Writing Assignments that Enhance Learning and Development and Reinvigorate WAC/WID Programs: What Almost 72,000 Undergraduates Taught Us,” Paul Anderson, Chris M. Anson, Robert Gonyea, and Charles Paine promote three writing constructs as successful high-impact practices in the post-secondary setting. Using more than 70,000 surveys from a National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Survey, Anderson and his colleagues ran a statistical analysis leading them to the three constructs vital to creating high-impact writing assignments: interactive writing processes, meaning-making writing tasks, and clear writing expectations.  The three constructs were then broken down into specific tasks instructors can do to accomplish each of these three constructs, making the goals accessible and measurable for all instructors in higher education. They argue that implementing these three constructs may help provide consistency within and among university departments and increase retention rates and graduation rates.

 

Adaptive Transfer of Knowledge in ELL Students

DePalma, Michael-John and Jeffrey Ringer. “Adaptive Transfer, Writing Across the Curriculum, and Second Language Writing: Implications for Research and Teaching” Writing Across the Curriculum: A Critical Source Book, edited by Terry Myers Zawacki and Paul M. Rogers, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012, pp. 43-67.

In “Adaptive Transfer, Writing Across the Curriculum, and Second Language Writing: Implications for Research and Teaching,” DePalma and Ringer reveal the complex adaptive processes English Language Learners (ELLs) must go through to keep up with their native English-speaking peers. The authors argue that scholars have focused on the re-use of learning rather than recognizing that many students rely on adaptation of learned skills to succeed in “unfamiliar” academic situations. They call this process “adaptive transfer”—the writer’s “conscious or intuitive process of applying or reshaping learned writing knowledge in order to negotiate new and potentially unfamiliar writing situations” (46). DePalma and Ringer’s purpose is to point out that multilingual writers must learn to write across disciplines in complex ways, and this requires flexibility.