Julie Howard

By Vicki Tolar Burton, WIC Director

If you are seeing more and more international and multi-lingual students in your classes and wondering how to adjust your teaching, this issue of Teaching with Writing is for you. We asked a trio of speakers from our spring lunch on writing pedagogy for multi-lingual writers to transform their talks into brief articles. Literature and Culture graduate student Corey Taylor, in “Assessing Hispanic Student Writing Across the Curriculum,” wants us to consider how to fairly assess the writing of Hispanic students. Following writing scholar Valerie Balester, Taylor encourages teachers to design multicultural rubrics that can easily be explained to students who may struggle with English.

Andre Habet, a graduate student in Rhetoric and Writing who grew up in Belize, in “Generative Empathy: Internationalizing Writing Across the Curriculum,” urges faculty across the curriculum to use low stakes writing tasks to learn course content and scaffold formal writing assignments. Further, Habet encourages instructors to examine their own course assignments and activities for aspects that might exclude non-American multi-lingual writers.

In “A Case for Awareness: Hawaii Writers at Oregon State University,” Kristina Lum, graduate student in Rhetoric and Writing, turns her focus on the needs of Hawaii writers at OSU. This is a diverse group of students, many of whom speak a Hawaii Creole English, also called Pidgin. Lum is interested in how faculty awareness of students’ linguistic background might improve writing experiences for student writers from Hawaii who are attending OSU.

We are grateful to these three graduate students for sharing their research and their list of sources where faculty might find more information on pedagogy for multi-lingual writers.

Be sure to take note that next year’s WIC Faculty Seminar will be held in the winter 2016 because I will be on a one term sabbatical during fall term. While I am on sabbatical in the fall, WIC will be ably directed by Tracy Ann Robinson (MIME), a teacher and scholar who has a long history with the WIC program. She will be able to assist you with course development and assessment questions while I am away. Nominations for the winter seminar can be sent to me through the summer and to Tracy Ann during fall term.

June is also the month to say good-bye to my WIC GTA, Jacob Day, who has been truly devoted to the enterprise of improving the teaching of writing in WIC courses at OSU. Jacob, thank you. Your clear head and good spirits have made this year a pleasure. I have also had a terrific support team of interns Jordan Terriere (winter term), Andre Habet (spring term), Kristina Lum (spring term), and finally faculty volunteer August Baunach, who also teaches technical writing. Working with this enthusiastic team is a joy. Have a great summer, everyone. I’ll see you in January!

The WIC Faculty Seminar for the 2015-2016 school year will be held in the winter, instead of the fall. Faculty interested in participating should ask their unit heads to email a nomination to WIC director Vicki Tolar Burton at vicki.tolarburton@oregonstate.edu.

The seminar, for both faculty teaching WIC courses and faculty using writing in non-WIC courses, focuses on learning best practices for teaching writing across the disciplines. Upon completing the five-session seminar, participating faculty receive a modest honorarium. Held on five consecutive Tuesdays, seminar dates are listed below:

January 19
January 26
February 2
February 9
February 16

*All seminars are conducted 3-5pm, Milam 215.

Registration is now open and will continue through fall term.

By Andre Habet (MA 2015, SWLF)

It is impossible to specifically characterize all Multiple Language Learners (MLLs) in Writing across the Curriculum (WAC) due to the innumerable variations between cultures, languages and individual identities of those students. Composition scholar Ann Johns notes that MLLs vary in their proficiency levels in their first languages and in English, in their professional aims and literacy theories, and in their academic expectations” (Johns 142). Even in cases where MLLs possess high proficiency in English, their cultural backgrounds or values may be considerably different from those of North American academic cultures. These differences potentially hinder MLLs’ engagement in class, particularly when professors use Americentric examples to explain concepts.

With the goal of a revised, more globally situated curriculum in mind, I recommend that WAC faculty reflect on the needs of MLLs when designing courses and related materials. This consideration involves instructors analyzing their own behavior, assignments, activities, and other course documents for qualities that might make it exclusionary to non-American multilingual learners. Such a task is complex and requires a deep level of reflection and scrutiny since “what is everyday and commonplace to [faculty] may be an alien company, concept or action to international or American students in their classroom,” but it’s a task that can be accomplished if instructors utilize their own rhetorical analysis to make their course materials less Americentric. While some faculty might see such difficulties as little concern to them and the native English speakers in their classroom, “these [international] students coming…from around the globe to get an American education and an American job deserve more than just [learning to succeed professionally]” (Cohen 69). Providing an in international student with the opportunity to fully engage in the course is part of the job of teaching, and the fact that that job potentially requires more nuanced attention and awareness in order to include them simply does not function as a good excuse to ignore a substantial portion of many universities’ student populations. However, I also want to ensure it is understood that greater empathy in course design does not mean holding MLLs to a lower standard than native speakers since such treatment can actually impede a student’s writing development. WAC faculty can take heed of the ways in which their colleagues in ESL (English as a Second Language) work to make the language and concepts of course documents comprehensible by MLLs. Instructors need to take responsibility for decisions in assignment design that may add to students’ writing difficulties. In doing so, we can model for students the degree of thoughtful awareness we would like them to bring to their own writing.

So far it may seem as if I recommend leaving the task of teaching multilingual learners exclusively in the hands of WAC faculty, giving WAC administrators one less job to take on. However, what I instead recommend is that WAC programs model empathetic course design in documents WAC administrators provide for WAC instructors’ use. By such modeling, WAC faculty can note the seriousness with which WAC administrators view the responsibility of making WAC more inclusive to MLLs, and also that making incremental changes to course design can be done in a way that does not destroy existing models, but reconfigures them in slight ways.

To show how WAC administrators might model tinkering for WAC faculty, I decided to do an analysis of Oregon State University’s (OS) Writing Intensive Curriculum’s Writer’s Personal Profile (WPP), and make recommendations for minor revision that can open the WPP to international students many of whom are MLLs, who now comprise 11.1% of OSU’s student body as of Fall 2014 (Enrollment Summary 1). Analyzing the WPP is beneficial since it is the first occasion when students are surveyed by WIC documents at OSU prior to the start of their WIC class (a discipline-specific, upper-level writing course). As its designers Tracy Ann Robinson and Vicki Tolar Burton note, the WPP lays “the groundwork for [students’s] self-evaluation of their writing progress both during and at the end of the term” (Robinson and Tolar Burton 1).

While many of the WPP’s questions already open themselves to be understood and relevant to multilingual international students, we can still take note of the ways that some questions can be improved to make MLLs feel a greater sense of inclusivity. For instance, Question 4 of section 1 ‘Your Current Writing Skills’, asks students whether they have already taken WR121 or its equivalent at OSU or a number of other options (“Writer’s Personal Profile” 1). The list, while already extensive, excludes an option for students from other countries who may have fulfilled WR121 credit in a post-secondary school system not typical in the United States, such as the sixth form model that is popular in the UK, and successfully transferring those credits here. Minor tinkering with the answers could add an option that states “I have taken WR121 or the equivalent in a non-US institution.” This would show international students that their backgrounds were just as relevant and of interest to WIC than those of their American peers.

Revisions to the WPP that would make it more inclusive to MLLs could also offer NES an opportunity to reflect on their own position in a globalized, multilingual context. Consider question 12 in the ‘Writing and Your Career,’ which currently assumes students’ careers will require writing in English as opposed to other languages. It prompts students to ‘list the career field in which you expect to seek employment after you complete your undergraduate degree,” and provide information about their “Intended career field,’ ‘Specific job position and/or employer, if known” (“WPP” 3). While learning this information provides students with reflection on their professional ambitions that could aid them in their goal-setting for the WIC course, it could also prompt students to consider the languages they are most likely to use in that job. This would not only benefit multilingual learners of English, but also Native English speakers who may be unaware of the global market in which they might later operate, and provide an opportunity for them to consider the necessity for expanding their multilingual skills.

This brief overview of suggested changes to the WIC Writer’s Personal Profile, while just the start of tinkering with the WPP, could lead to greater work that can benefit both multilingual learners and native English speakers. It would help them and their instructors recognize the diversity present on OSU’s campus, and also the need to interact with a global culture now that we are here, and no longer in an insular American world.

Works Cited

Cohen, Samuel. “Tinkering Toward WAC Utopia.” Journal of Basic Writing 21.2 (2002): 56-72. ERIC. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.

D’Alessio, Diane, Riley, Margaret. “Scaffolding Writing Skills for ESL Students in an Education Class at a Community College.” WAC Journal 13 (2002): 79-89. Enrollment Summary- Fall 2014. Rep. Oregon State University. Nov. 2014. Web. 2 Dec. 2014.

Johns, Ann M. “ESL Students And WAC Programs: Varied Populations And Diverse Needs.” WAC for the New Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Programs. . Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, (2001) 141-164 MLA International Bibliography. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.

Lee, Debra S. “What Teachers Can Do To Relieve Problems Identified By International Students.” New

Directions For Teaching And Learning 70 (1997): 93-100. ERIC. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.

Robinson, Tracy Ann and Vicki Tolar Burton. “The Writer’s Personal Profile: Student Self-Assessment and

Goal-Setting at Start of Term.” Across the Disciplines 6 (2006). Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Zamel, Vivian. “Engaging Students In Writing-To-Learn: Promoting Language And Literacy Across The

Curriculum.” Journal Of Basic Writing 19.2 (2000): 3-21. ERIC. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.

By Kristina Lum (MA 2016, SWLF)

As most of us have seen, there is an increasing trend of international student enrollment here at OSU. This increase has prompted discussions on how instructors can address the needs of students who are learning to write in English, a language different from their native one. However, international students are not the only multilingual students. There are students who were born and raised in America but do not speak English as their first language. These students could be the children of immigrants or from a place in which another language is just as common as English. One such student population is students from Hawaii or, as Morris Young calls them, “Hawaii writers.”

According to OSU’s 2014 fall enrollment summary, Hawaii is the third highest in state residency enrollment, which means that there is a fair number of Hawaii writers attending OSU. Since Hawaii is part of America, these students were educated in the American school system, but they are coming from a linguistic and cultural background that is different from their peers. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Hawaii writers is that most grew up hearing and/or speaking a language commonly referred to as “Pidgin” but were educated in a school system that ephasized the use of Standard English (SE).

Although Pidgin closely resembles English, linguists recognize it as a legitimate language with its own unique grammatical structures and lexicon. However, Pidgin has been a topic of controversy because it can easily be mistaken for a form of imperfect or broken English, particularly when it comes to education. In fact, the Hawaii Department of Education attempted to ban the use of Pidgin in all public schools in 1987 because they believed that it interfered with student achievement.

Multiple studies done by scholars such as Mary Lynn Fiore Ohama et al. and Richard Day indicate that the education system in Hawaii perpetuates discrimination towards Pidgin through its preference for SE. As a result, Pidgin-speaking students may be more reluctant to speak up in class because they think that they are speaking a lesser language. Some may even try to hide the fact that they speak Pidgin by opting to switch to SE in professional or academic settings. However, the switching between languages is not always perfect and elements of Pidgin can show up in their English speech or writing. When this happens, Pidgin might be mistaken for “improper” English.

The case of Pidgin-speaking Hawaii writers is an example of how the favoring of SE continues to de-legitimize the use of other languages or linguistic variation in academia. Therefore, it is important for us to recognize the assumptions we have about the linguistic backgrounds of our domestic students and the potentially disenfranchising elements of SE for students like Hawaii writers. This, however, is not an argument against teaching SE; it is an argument for awareness.

Being aware of the backgrounds of our students can help us make sense of the writing that students turn in. For instance, what might appear to be a paper written by a lazy student who wrote her essay one hour before the due date might instead be a paper from a multilingual student who is still struggling to successfully translate her thoughts into SE.

Simple activities such as collecting notecards with information about where the student is from or having students write a short essay about their past writing experiences can provide a better context for our assessment. As a result, we can re-evaluate the ways in which we respond to student writing. This does not necessarily mean that we need to lower our expectations. Instead, such practices call for us to read, teach, and assess with more patience and understanding when student writing does not meet our expectations.

While unique, the situation of OSU Hawaii writers is not the only one of its kind. If we consider the range of dialects, vernaculars, creoles, and accents present in America, we are looking at a large spectrum of linguistic diversity within our domestic student population. Being aware of this diversity is the first step in creating more inclusive pedagogies that will better serve our students.

Reference List:

Day, Richard R. “The Development of Linguistic Attitudes and Preferences.” TESOL Quarterly 14.1 (1980): 27-37. Print.

Ohama, Mary Lynn Fiore, Carolyn C. Gotay, Ian S. Pagano, Larry Boles, and Dorothy D. Craven. “Evaluations of Hawaii Creole English and Standard English.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19.3 (2000): 357-377. Print.

Young, Morris. “Standard English and Student Bodies: Institutionalizing Race and Literacy in Hawai‘i.” College English 64.4 (2002): 405-431. Print.

Young, Morris. Minor Re/Visions: Asian American Literacy Narratives as a Rhetoric of Citizenship. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2004. Print.

By Corey Taylor (MA 2016, SWLF)

2013 was the first year in which the percentage of graduating Hispanic students going to a four-year-degree institution surpassed the percentage of white students doing the same, according to Pew Research’s Hispanic Trends Project. Approximately 7% of Oregon State University’s current student population is Hispanic, making it one of the largest non-white ethnic groups at the University. This number is small compared to the dramatic shifts going on in Oregon’s public schools. Currently Hispanic students face two large hurdles among many when it comes to the equitable assessment of their writing: an assessment culture that is increasingly focused on standardization, in addition to the reduction of the Hispanic writer to a simplistic“L2” linguistic identity that does not account for the ethnolinguistic diversity found in Hispanic communities.

One of the largest issues facing minority students today across academia is the push for standardization—a movement that can quickly change from the desire for equitable assessment for everyone, to assessing everyone the same way without accounting for ethnolinguistic and other differences. Throughout writing courses in all disciplines, standardization comes in the form of Rubrics and Grading Guides. Rubrics can often become barriers for minority students because of what scholar Valerie Balester calls “Acculturationalist” and “Accommodationist” rubric types.

Acculturationalist rubrics are those that “aim for ‘standard’ English, posited as a stable and singular entity” with the goal to “eradicate ‘substandard English” (66). In the examples provided below, the Accultrationalist rubric sample is almost confrontational in its prose. Run-ons and comma splices must be absolutely eradicated, and diction must be excellent. For any writer not completely comfortable with their lignustic ability, this barrage is intimdating at best, and stifling at worst.

Accommodationist rubrics, on the other hand, are those which still focus on the same standards as acculturationalist rubrics, but are written in a way as to seem non-confrontational, so that “students must accommodate school language usually through code-switching” (Balester 67). In the example, the Accomidationist rubric is written on implications. What exactly is a “sophisticated form of expression,” or a “compositional risk?” For basic readers, this type of rubric is simply hard to translate, and for a basic writer it is confusing.

Balester suggests that writing instructors move to a third model of rubric that she calls “multicultural rubrics.” She defines these rubrics as those that encourage “writerly agency that privileges meaning-making through rhetorically based choices” (72). In other words, rubrics can use terms like “sophisticated forms of expression,” or “compositional risks” but the instructor should, either in front of the class or in the rubric/assignment prompt itself, address the ways in which these terms are defined within the context of the assignment. The example below encourages “editing” and “superior control of grammar” rather than “mechanics” and “eliminating errors,” keeping the expectations relative but specific enough for effective assessment. For instructors of writing in the disciplines, these multicultural rubrics also present the opportunity to explain why certain genres, styles and conventions are privileged/used in their discourse communities. This is not only helpful for minority writers, but novice writers in general.

Another danger in assessing minority students is the tendency to focus solely on their linguistic identities rather than using a multifaceted ethnolinguistic perspective. This can be problematic for Hispanic students in particular because of how linguistically diverse Hispanic students are. There are over 20 different nations under the “Hispanic” umbrella. Most Hispanic cultures speak Spanish. However, many also speak various creole dialects, as well regional and local Spanish dialects. These dialects are then brought to the United States, and often merge with English. The assumption that Hispanic basic writers must also be ESL learners is prevalent, and as Professor Betriz Mendez-Newman of Texas Pan American University states, “implies the student is relying predictably and consciously on competence in an established first language to achieve competence in a second language” (23). Mendez Newman points out that most multilingual Hispanic writers have “primarily oral confidence” in Spanish and have learned written English in school, describing them as “minimally bilingual” and often more proficient in written English than they are in written Spanish (24).

Low-stakes writing tasks are an easy way for writing instructors to engage with students’ writing before final assessments, providing the instructor with knowledge of the student’s language proficiency, writing history and even some insight into common errors. The added bonus is that short assignments take less time to grade, and can often be done in class with minimal mark-up required. Writing About Writing activities – such journals where students can write about current or past writing experiences, surveys such as Oregon State’s own Writer’s Personal Profile, or Process Memos–where students write about their drafting process on a paper before turning it in–also allow the instructor to better tailor their assessment and feedback on written work.

Examples:

Acculturationalist: Mechanics: Sentence structure, grammar, and diction excellent; correct use of punctuation and citation style; minimal to no spelling errors; absolutely no run-on sentences or comma splices.

Accommodationist: When the writer attempts to communicate complex ideas through sophisticated forms of expression, he/she may make minor errors as a result of these compositional risks. These types of errors do not detract from the overall fluency of the composition.

Multicultural: An “A” paper displays evidence of careful editing with superior control of grammar and mechanics appropriate to the assignment.

References

Balester, Valerie. “How Rubrics Fail: Toward a Multicultural Model.” Race and Writing Assessment. Ed. Asao B. Inoue and Mya Poe. New York: P. Lang, 2012. Print.

Fry, Richard, and Paul Taylor. “Hispanic High School Graduates Pass Whites in Rate of College Enrollment.” Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Kells, Michelle Hall. “Linguistic Contact Zones in the College Writing Classroom: An Examination of Ethnolinguistic Identity and Language Attitudes.” Written Communication 19.1 (2002): 5–43. Print

Mendez Newman, Beatrice. “Teaching at a Hispanic Serving Institution.” Teaching Writing with Latino/a Students: Lessons Learnedat Hispanic- Serving Institutions. Ed. Cristina Kirklighter, Diana Cárdenas, and Susan Wolff Murphy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007. Print.

By Jacob Day, WIC GTA

Through the annual Culture of Writing Award, WIC and participating units and schools foster a commitment to excellence in undergraduate student writing and recognize the value of writing across the disciplines. Participation in the Culture of Writing Award has thrived since 2006 as students earn recognition and cash awards through either individual or team writing projects. This year, participation continues to be strong with early results showing 16 awardees, with more expected. WIC would like to thank all participating units for their continued desire to recognize and reward outstanding student writing. Congratulations to this year’s award winners!

	Student Name	Paper Title	College / Unit	Nominating Professor
1	Crystal Kraft	“Harper’s Healing with Horse Therapy”	College of Public Health and Human Sciences, School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences	Joy Lile
2	Heaven Le Roberts	“Ethical Concerns of Testing Toxins in Animals”	College of Agricultural Sciences, Animal and Rangeland Sciences	Giovanna Rosenlicht
3	Christopher Heron	“Synthesis and Characterization of 4-Ethylbenzophenone”	College of Science, Chemistry	Michelle Dolgos
4	K.C. Clay	“Emotions as Motivations for the Conquistadors”	College of Liberal Arts School of History, Philosophy, and Religion	Nicole von Germeten
5	Alexandra Joy Bonney	“Genome sequencing and annotation of Pseudomonas veronii isolated from Oregon State University soil and 16S rRNA characterization of Corvallis, OR soil microbial populations”	College of ScienceDepartment of Microbiology	Walt Ream
6	Timothy Michael Chase	“The Development of Music Notation: Notational Practices of the Middle Ages and How They Reveal a Changing Philosophy of Music”	College of Liberal Arts School of Arts & Communications	Julia Goodwin
7	Peter Killgore	“The Fano Plane as an Octonionic Multiplication Table”	College of Science Mathematics	Tevian Dray
8	Hannah Whitley	“Support for Capital Punishment: The Role of Parenthood and Suburbanism in Death Penalty Opinions”	College of Liberal Arts, School of Public Policy Sociology Program	Mark Edwards
9	Alyssa Beamer	“Artistic Engineering”	College of Liberal Arts School of Writing, Literature, and Film	Steve Kunert
10	B. Lauren Stoneburner	“Aimee Semple McPherson and Writing the Faith into the Modern World”	College of Liberal Arts School of History, Philosophy, and Religion	Courtney Campbell
11	Kodasha M. Thomas	“Targeted Intervention to Reduce HIV Transmission-Atlanta, GA”	College of Public Health and Human Sciences, School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences	Joseph A. Catania
12	Christopher J. Ratcliff	“Carbon Isotopes Show Snowpack Acts as a Valuable Moisture Subsidy to Mountain Forests in the Oregon Cascades”	College of Agricultural Science, BioResource Research	Katharine G. Field
13	Amanda Leahy	“Textile and Apparel Marketing Plan”	College of Business, School of Design and Human Environment	Tsun-Yin (Tracie) Tung
14	Emily Kolodzy	“Textile and Apparel Marketing Plan”	College of Business, School of Design and Human Environment	Tsun-Yin (Tracie) Tung
15	Zoe Chrisman-Miller	“The Effects of Adult Attachment on Exercise”	College of Liberal Arts, School of Psychological Sciences	Mei Lien
16	Emily Jackson	“The Geologic Setting,History, Hazards, andMitigation of the MountYake-Dake Volcano on Honshu Island, Japan”	College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, School of Geosciences	Anita Grunder
17	Michael Perlin	“Optimizing Monte Carlo simulation of the square-well fluid”	College of Science, Department of Physics	Janet Tate
18	Jessica Cesar	“Fighting for Fruit: IPM Strategies for Drosophila suzukii in Blueberry and Raspberry Production”	College of Agricultural Science, Department of Crop and Soil Science	Jennifer Parke
19	Claire Osterag-Hill	“Differentiation of BHV-1 Isolates from Vaccine Virus by High-Resolution Melting Analysis and An Examination of the Interface Between Culture and the Global Prevalence of HSV-2″	University Honors College	Ling Jin
20	Alyssa Ekdahl	“Ion Exchange System for Strontium Removal”	College of Engineering, Chemical Engineering	Philip Harding
21	Sarah Seals	“Ion Exchange System for Strontium Removal”	College of Engineering, Biological Engineering	Philip Harding
22	Jana Otero	“Ion Exchange System for Strontium Removal”	College of Engineering, Environmental Engineering	Philip Harding
23	Jordon Walker	“Pragmatism, Walt Whitman, and Understanding	Liberal Arts, Cascades	James Foster

Writing Advice from WIC Culture of Writing Award Winners

The 2015 WIC Culture of Writing Award winners were asked to give writing advice for students in their respective majors and disciplines. Here is what they had to say:

Peter Kilgore, Mathematics:

“If you are going to be writing mathematics, take the time to learn LaTeX; it will make the project much easier and gives a nice professional look to your work. When it comes to getting your ideas on paper, make an outline! It doesn’t have to be super detailed, but this helps develop a nice flow within your paper. Above all, be clear and concise. Mathematical writing must be exact and precise without getting bogged down in superfluous verbiage. Say exactly what you mean in as few words as possible. I think these are the basis for writing a good mathematical paper.”

Tim Chase, Music:

“It’s most important when selecting a topic to choose a subject that interests you most. I suggest taking the one or two aspects of first term Music History that you found the most fascinating and stick with them, even if a thesis statement doesn’t come right away. When I chose to write about music notation, I cycled through different thesis statements multiple times a week until I found one that fit. So my best advice is to choose something, however broad, that makes you curious and excited, and then simply read everything you can. An arguable thesis will come, and then your research will be driven by interest and fascination as well as a deadline.”

Hannah Whitley, Sociology:

“I think that writing for sociology requires a delicate, yet necessary balance; not only do individuals need to know the tools necessary for writing in the humanities, but there is also the required scientific component when it comes to quantitative and result analysis. I feel like many writers are either comfortable with ONLY writing for science or ONLY writing for humanities, which is why writing for social science has traditionally been so daunting.

“My biggest piece of advice is to acknowledge that (as with any research paper), your process is going to take time. We have always been told to not procrastinate and not leave assignments until the last minute, but in writing major sociological research papers, this piece of advice is a big deal. In order to communicate your ideas effectively, while simultaneously weaving through the humanities/scientific writing maze, make sure to set aside enough time to simply write. I feel like a lot of students struggle with underestimating how long something will take them to write, which is why this is a very important piece of advice! Also, never overlook the power of a second opinion. I like to make sure that all my major papers are seen by a minimum of three other people. This way, I can see if my ideas are communicated effectively and clearly.”

K. C. Clay, History:

“Unless it is a direct quote, every citation should have at least two sources. Other scholars might disagree with your argument or your interpretation, but your facts will be fixed.”

Brittany Stoneburner, Religious Studies:

“Work hard. Don’t just write for the class or a good grade. Seek out your Professors. They will bring out the best in you. Above all else – be creative and have fun.”

Kodasha Thomas, Public Health:

“The primary advice I have for other writers in the Public Health major is: Write about your passions and what interests you! Don’t hold back from experiencing different types of writing that you aren’t used to. And remember, writing is a process, so be patient with your work!”

By Vicki Tolar Burton, WIC Director

Faculty who have taken the WIC Seminar may remember Donald A. Daiker’s powerful article, “Learning to Praise” (1989). Examining studies of comments written on
student writing, Daiker notes, for example, that in a set of freshman essays, of 864 comments, only 51 were comments of praise. In another study, 89.4% of comments cited errors or criticized the writing, while only 10.6% of comments offered affirmation or praise. Daiker says, “Perhaps we need to go back to school ourselves to learn how to recognize what merits praise in student writing.”

Every OSU department or unit with an undergraduate major has the annual opportunity to praise and celebrate strong student writing by awarding the WIC Culture of Writing Award in their discipline to their top undergraduate writer. This recognition is very significant to our students. They are not used to being praised for their writing, much less winning and award. Despite the impact on students, typically, only about fifteen to eighteen departments/units, of a possible 70+ majors, nominate an undergrad for this award. This is not an extensive competition: if the unit nominates the student, the student wins the award. This is an easy, inexpensive (unit contributes $50, WIC matches) way to send the message to our undergraduates that the faculty and the university value excellent writing.

In addition to honoring a student writer, the selection process within the unit gives faculty an opportunity to identify the qualities of good writing in their particular discipline, information that should be communicated to students in every course.

Please consider nominating one of your upper division student writers for the WIC Culture of Writing Award in your discipline—and persuading your unit to participate in the awards. Let’s practice praising excellence in undergraduate writing. Information on the nomination process appears elsewhere in this issue.

In praise of praise, Daiker quotes novelist Raymond Carver who remembers his own teacher John Gardner’s generous (though exacting) comments: “He was always looking to find something to praise. When there was a sentence, a line of dialogue, or a narrative passage that he liked, something that he thought ‘worked’ and moved the story along in some pleasant or unexpected way, he’d write ‘Nice’ in the margin or else ‘Good!’ And seeing these comments, my heart would lift. (quoted in Daiker 111)

Let’s lift the hearts of OSU writers across the curriculum with Culture of Writing awards and well deserved praise.

Daiker, Donald S. “Learning to Praise.” Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Chris Anson, Ed. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1989.

By Jacob Day, WIC GTA
Special thanks: Brooke Howland and Sara Jameson

As many of you may already know, OSU is transitioning from Blackboard to Canvas. Many instructors have already started using Canvas, but everyone will be required to make the leap by the fall of 2015. These types of transitions can be difficult for some instructors, especially if they are a little less tech savvy or comfortable with the current system. To ease this transition, OSU is periodically offering campus-wide presentations and workshops. Additionally, Lynn Greenough and Brooke Howland are holding open labs in Waldo 320b every Tuesday and Friday at 9am and every Wednesday at noon. These two women are extremely helpful and can answer many of your Canvas questions.

I sat down with Brooke Howland with a few questions of my own. I wanted to know how Canvas was going to help the WIC instructors with their online and face-to-face courses. Brooke kindly showed me many of Canvas’s useful functions for writing instructors. To begin, Brooke explained that Canvas is more student-centric than blackboard, which is very useful for writing instructors because it allows for students to collaborate with each other and the instructor more easily.

These collaboration tools are easy to access and use. Once the user logs in to Canvas, a series of tabs appear on the left of the screen. Some of these tabs are: Announcements, People, Conference, Pages, Collaboration, and Chat. The Announcement and Discussion tabs are similar to Blackboard, but they also offer new options. For example, in the spirit of student-teacher collaboration, the Announcement feature allows for students to respond. These student responses can be seen by the entire class, which is beneficial if a student’s questions and comments are shared by other students. And as Brooke Howland adds, seeing questions and answers in a thread can lessen the amount of repeat questions an instructor will directly receive.

The Discussion tab operates much like the Discussion feature in Blackboard, but threads can now be pinned and video, text, and even voice can be incorporated. What this means for instructors who use discussion boards for collaborative learning exercises is that really important or reoccurring threads can be pinned, which permanently places them at the top of the thread list. Additionally, any discussion thread can be used with traditional digital text, but now students and instructors can respond with video or audio. One Oregon State writing instructor, Sara Jameson, uses this feature in her online writing course to introduce students who would otherwise never see each other. Jameson explains that students in her online class, who live all over the country, upload videos introducing themselves, and then they are asked to comment on other student’s videos to acquaint themselves with each other.

Video and audio are actually available in many of Canvas’s features. Brooke explained to me that the conference, chat, and peer review features all offer video collaboration. The Conferences tab uses the “Bigbluebutton” feature (I suggest looking at the YouTube tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx8NbVDPpoY) , which allows an instructor to video conference with just one student, or simultaneously with several students. This feature is extremely helpful in online courses, because the instructor can see the student’s computer screen, if they allow it, which enables students to look at their work with their instructor. The student and instructor can use digital drawing tools to mark on the documents together, as well. Sara Jameson also uses this feature in her online course for office hours, required conferences, and even peer review (students can use this feature without an instructor present).

There is a separate peer review tab, which includes the options to randomly assign peer review groups and manually assign peer review groups. Sara Jameson uses the conferencing feature to do peer review, however, because it offers the ability to chat and review work in real time, where the peer review feature only allows for documents and videos to be uploaded into more of a discussion board type platform. Both of these features are sure to be helpful in assisting in peer-to-peer collaboration, depending on the instructor’s preference and style.

The Pages and Collaboration features also aid in collaborative learning. The Collaboration feature links to each student’s gmail account (students can choose which one, but Jameson recalls that most will link it to their onid account), a function that aids students in sharing documents and links via Google docs. Pages acts just like a Wiki page, where the instructor creates a thread, adds students to the thread, after which students can add and delete information from the page. Sara uses the Etherpad function in the Pages tab to create collaborative wikis, where all student changes can be tracked.

Grading also becomes quite a lot easier with Canvas. In the SpeedGrader tab, instructors who have students turn writing assignments in digitally can comment and mark on the document itself. There is also a rubric function that can be used to score and comment on student assignments. Instructors can even respond via video or audio message, whereby student can respond—if the instructor so desires.

As mentioned earlier, Canvas is truly a student-centered program. Centering students in writing is one of the main principles of collaborative learning and Writing Intensive courses. Even though transitioning to a whole new teaching system can be daunting, we believe it will be worth any temporary inconvenience in the end. We should all be excited for this transition, because Canvas is sure to ease the burden of a large class size, the grading of process/iterative writing assignments, peer-to-peer collaboration, and the limitations of online courses.

By Jordan Terriere, WIC Intern

On Friday, February 13, the WIC Advisory Board met. Faculty from departments across the university were in attendance, along with the Writing Intensive Curriculum team. Topics covered in the board meeting included the Baccalaureate Core review of the College of Engineering’s writing intensive courses, writing intensive class sizes, and thesis as WIC.

The Baccalaureate Core review of Engineering WIC courses is underway. The WIC team is reviewing the submissions before they go to the Baccalaureate Core Committee for review in order to assure all WIC courses meet category requirements. The Board discussed ways in which the Engineering WIC courses can be strengthened, including by reducing class size and improving opportunities for feedback on writing for students. Additionally, the board discussed a course in the Engineering department that is using an innovative approach to teaching WIC in a large class. The course utilizes undergraduate mentors to help assess straight forward formatting requirements and conventions. The engineering content and style of the writing is evaluated by the instructor.

WIC guidelines specify a class size maximum of twenty, but due to enrollment growth, the Baccalaureate Core Committee currently gives leeway to the upper twenties. Course sizes going far over the required range is a current problem. As class sizes get larger, the benefits of the WIC course are jeopardized. The Board discussed ways this could be improved, including supporting the Baccalaureate Core Committee in restricting class size.

Finally, the Board discussed the thesis option for WIC that is used by Physics, Biology Resource Research, the International degree, and the Honors College. This option can be very successful. The Honors College has a new thesis WIC model for biology, and is open to helping other departments as they consider a WIC thesis course designed for their Honors majors.

Board members in attendance: Kevin Boston, Kate Lajtha, Phil Harding, Karen Hooker, Ken Winograd, Tracy Ann Robinson, Jonathan Katz, Dan Edge, Eugene Young, Janet Tate, Andrea Marks, and WIC Director Vicki Tolar Burton. Absent members: James Foster, Stefanie Buck, Tara Williams, Rebecca Warner, Anthony Wilcox, and Jon Dorbolo. Members of the WIC team include Jacob Day, GTA; August Baunach, SWLF Faculty Volunteer; Jordan Terriere, Intern; and Julie Howard, Office Specialist.

As spring term arrives, please remember to nominate outstanding undergraduate student essays for a WIC Culture of Writing Award. Recognizing exceptional student
writing communicates to our students and the university that good writing matters in every discipline. Participating units (schools, departments) seek nominations from the faculty and select the best paper from the major. WIC then awards $50, matched by $50 for the unit, for the writing prize winner. What a great way to acknowledge the hard work and talent of our undergraduate writers!

Once your department or unit has chosen a paper to nominate, fill out the nomination form and submit it to Julie Howard by 5:00 p.m. PST, June 1, 2015. 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 or 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. Thus, we have a deadline that enables us to process all awards to student accounts before the end of spring term. Units with special considerations regarding the due date should contact Vicki Tolar Burton, copying Jacob Day. If a student winner has graduated prior to June 2015, additional paperwork will be required.

Teaching With Writing: The WIC Newsletter

Author Archives: Julie Howard

Pre/Views: Multi-Lingual Writers at OSU

Call for Nominations: 2015-16 WIC Faculty Seminar

Generative Empathy: Internationalizing Writing across the Curriculum

A Case for Awareness: Hawaii Writers at Oregon State University

Assessing Hispanic Student Writing Across the Curriculum

The Annual WIC Culture of Writing Awards in the Disciplines

Pre/Views: “Learning to Praise,” Revisited: Why Faculty Should Nominate Students for the WIC Culture of Writing Awards

Using Canvas in the WIC Classroom

WIC Advisory Board Meeting

Call for WIC Culture of Writing Award Nominations

Contact Info