According to Dr. Valerie Balester, Executive Director of the University Writing Center (UWC), the award acknowledges the work of faculty members teaching W courses.

“The W courses are meant not only to improve students’ writing abilities, but also to encourage them to think critically about topics central to their discipline,” Balester explains. “These courses truly enhance the quality of our students’ undergraduate education.”

“There’s no denying that designing a new course or rethinking an existing one requires careful thought and planning,” Balester continues. “I wish we
could reward all the instructors making that effort, but this award allows us each year to recognize one instructor who approaches the W course with a particular spirit of innovation and a commitment to excellence. In reviewing W course proposals, I’ve been encouraged to find many instructors who see writing not merely as an add-on but as truly integral to the learning process of their students. That’s central to the W course idea.”

The Center for Teaching Excellence  will coordinate the award’s selection process; nominations will be reviewed by a committee of faculty members engaged in teaching W courses. Nominations are due to the Center for Teaching Excellence on or before August 5, 2005; the first recipient will be announced in the fall.

Eligible faculty members may be nominated by colleagues, departments, and colleges, or they may nominate themselves. Nomination packets should include:

• a letter of nomination explaining how the instructor is contributing to the development of W courses in the college or department;
• a syllabus demonstrating the integration of writing into the course;
• a brief statement by the nominee about the motivation for the course, as well as an analysis of what has worked well and what has presented challenges. Faculty are encouraged to include student writing samples.

For more on the award, please visit the faculty pages of the UWC’s Web site at http://uwc.tamu.edu.

An associate professor in the Department of Mathematics, Stecher wasn’t sure about transforming MATH 220, a course on the fundamentals of discrete mathematics, into a writing-intensive (W) course.

“I was concerned that perhaps having to qualify 220 as a writing course would detract from its content,” Stecher acknowledges.

 

Mike Stecher by the Fish Pond on Campus

Mike Stecher, associate professor of mathematics, had doubts about W courses at first, but now says students in his course learn from writing about math.

Luckily for both Stecher and his students, he needn’t have worried.
In fact, Stecher, now in his third semester of teaching this W course,
says “for MATH 220, integrating writing is ideal because what we want
to accomplish in this course is training our students how to write
mathematics and how to read mathematics. So, the writing fits in well.”

Students
have also been receptive to the writing assignments, offering, Stecher
notes, “mostly positive comments, saying the writing component has
helped them learn.”

The students still take quizzes and exams, but also complete four writing assignments using Calibrated Peer Review (CPR).

“They
submit a document and go through online training on what that document
should look like,” Stecher explains. “Then they grade three of their
peers’ papers and then their own. Their grade for the assignment is
determined by how well they do each of those steps.”

Although CPR
isn’t a time-saver for him, Stecher believes it’s useful because “with
CPR, as opposed to standard writing assignments, the students have to
do some grading themselves, which I hope enables them to improve their
critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze what they’re
reading.”

Integrating the required writing instruction into class
time hasn’t been a problem for Stecher, who notes that “when the
writing is talked about, it’s also involved with the content.” In
particular Stecher has made use of writing models, bringing in examples
from the students’ own assignments for discussion.

Stecher
doesn’t focus on teaching grammar, concentrating instead on how
effectively students are communicating. He acknowledges it can be
annoying to read papers using “your” for “you’re” and “to” for “too,”
but says that, for him, “the crucial thing is if students can convey
their ideas to someone else, so readers can understand their thought
process.”

While Stecher has plenty of positive things to say
about his current W course, the requirement for departments to offer a
second such course by fall 2006 concerns him, particularly for the many
departments on campus like mathematics that have content-heavy courses.
He’d like to see the university “give more thought to what really
should make a course a W course.”

His concerns aside, Stecher
appears to take pride in his willingness to adapt, whether he’s
learning to use CPR or integrating writing assignments into his class.
As he puts it, “when you want to do something, you can say, ‘Well, it’s
going to be a big deal’ and make it hard for yourself, or you can just
go ahead and do it. My attitude has always been: Just go ahead and do
it.”

The English department, however, has nowhere near enough graduate students to accomplish that. In fact, most of the department’s graduate students are already developing professional expertise as teachers of ENGL 104, 203, and 210 and are unlikely to be interested in teaching in another department. Furthermore, the cost would be fairly high.

Texas A&M, however, has a rich and talented workforce in its undergraduates. Other universities such as Brown and Brigham Young have already proven that undergraduates can make highly effective and comparatively inexpensive aides in the writing-intensive classroom.

This spring, we have followed this example by initiating the Undergraduate Writing Assistants program. In the fall of 2005, we will have 19 undergraduates from majors as diverse as theater arts, architecture, and biomedical science available to work as aides to writing-intensive (W) course instructors. By spring 2006, we expect to double that number with our eventual goal being 60 to 70 trained aides working in classrooms across campus.

I believe the Undergraduate Writing Assistants (UWAs) will help instructors significantly. Although these aides will not act as graders, they will take on the different and equally time-consuming task of providing undergraduates with feedback on their writing, either inside or outside of class.

Currently in their first semester of training, the UWAs are earning certification as writing consultants with the College Reading and Learning Association. They are learning to model good writing practices, provide resources and advice, and serve as teachers and coaches. They’re also learning what makes an effective assignment, how to create a rubric to guide composition and assessment, and how to present writing instruction. They are brushing up on grammar and punctuation, learning about various documentation styles, and being introduced to Turnitin.com, WebCT, and Calibrated Peer Review.

By the end of training, they will be able to function as a writing resource for a department, a class, or a professor, available during office hours to confer with students about their drafts, to hold writing workshops in class, and to assist the instructor in responding to student work. I am confident they will be in great demand once a few faculty members get to work with them.

To hire an assistant, you must (1) be teaching an approved W course; (2) agree to basic ground rules, including that no assistant will grade; (3) provide an acceptable base of operations such as a desk or other work area; and (4) provide assessment to help in our program’s improvement. If you’d like to request a UWA for your W course, you can contact me directly: v-balester@tamu.edu. In addition, I welcome your thoughts on how this and other programs can benefit you.

And for a more complete description of the UWA program, please turn the page.

This spring the University Writing Center (UWC) began training the first Undergraduate Writing Assistants, a select group of talented students who will next fall be assigned to assist some of the faculty members teaching writing-intensive (W) courses. While one goal of the program is to ease the burdens on W course instructors, Dr. Valerie Balester, Executive Director of the UWC, also envisions these undergraduates contributing to a more dynamic and innovative writing environment across campus.

The UWC’s pilot program, modeled on successful programs at several other universities including George Mason, Brigham Young, Brown, and Boise State, will assist W course instructors in responding to the work of their student writers. While the Undergraduate Writing Assistants (UWAs) won’t grade assignments, they will be trained to offer students feedback through classroom instruction and individual conferences.

“To begin this program, we asked faculty to nominate exceptional undergraduates who are particularly strong writers,” explains Balester. “And the students in this inaugural group are definitely skilled writers, but writing ability alone isn’t enough. During their two semesters of training, UWAs will also learn strategies for teaching writing. In particular, they’ll learn how to help student writers become more self-reliant, able to discover and remedy their own weaknesses, as well as be able to capitalize on their strengths.”

“The UWAs will learn, for instance, how to ask effective questions to help student writers move beyond merely reciting facts into performing more critical analysis,” Balester continues. “And they’ll learn that there’s little benefit to marking every grammatical error on a paper. Instead, the UWAs will look for patterns and correct a few representative sentences, encouraging students then to find and correct more such errors on their own. One of their goals will be to get students more actively engaged in reviewing their own work, whether by helping students learn to proofread or encouraging them to look for logical weaknesses in their argument.”

UWAs will also receive instruction in locating resources about writing and the teaching of writing.

“The UWAs are becoming familiar with a wide array of resources,” notes Balester. “They’ll be able, for example, to help students find information on how to write an introduction or cite sources. Or they might help the instructor locate examples of different kinds of writing assignments or a Web site that outlines the proofreading process.”

Once the program is at full strength, 60 to 70 UWAs will be available each semester to assist faculty members. Because they come from a range of majors, the UWAs will also bring to the classroom their knowledge of their own field of study.

“I’m really enjoying working with these students,” Balester observes. “They’re energetic, dedicated, and thoughtful. With the added bonus of their  training, I think they’re going to be a great asset to W course students and instructors alike.”

Here’s how the UWA program will function.

Selection

UWAs are undergraduates nominated by instructors. They may come from any major but should have a GPA of 3.0 or better in that major and must have at least two semesters remaining on the College Station campus.

Candidates submit a writing sample and a written recommendation from one professor in their major. After the applications are reviewed, candidates are
interviewed by UWC staff.

Training

UWAs will earn two credits over two semesters in ENGL 485. Course work will include reviewing basic writing fundamentals, such as organization, coherence, and style, as well as grammar and punctuation. Students will discuss the writing process from idea generation to proofreading, and will
learn how to conduct one-on-one consultations. Students will also receive instruction in research methods, documentation styles, and
writing pedagogy. And they’ll practice using Turnitin.com, WebCT, and Calibrated Peer Review.

Through their coursework, UWAs will earn certification as writing consultants from the College Reading and Learning Association. During their first semester of training, they’ll also work part-time in the UWC, first observing experienced consultants and then later conducting their own sessions with writers from all across campus.

On the Job

Once they’ve been assigned to an instructor, UWAs can take on any number of tasks. They can

• offer written comments on drafts;
• hold conferences with students;
• lead class workshops on peer editing or Calibrated Peer Review;
• find or create class materials to address specific writing issues;
• respond to student questions via email or instant messaging;
• help students locate and evaluate resources; and
• assist the instructor in designing writing assignments or creating grading rubrics.

Salary

UWAs will earn $8-$10 an hour, depending on their level of training. During  their first training semester, their salary will be paid in full by the UWC. Once they’re assigned to work with a department or instructor, the UWC will continue to pay half of their salary for at least one semester.

Placement

Beginning in fall 2005, UWAs will be assigned to a W course, where they will assist both the instructor and the students. Every effort will be made to accommodate specific requests from faculty members, including when possible, placing UWAs with the faculty members who nominated them.

W course instructors may submit a request for an undergraduate writing assistant to be assigned to their fall 2005 W course by contacting Valerie
Balester at v-balester@tamu.edu.

What does it take to propose a writing intensive (W) course? Sarah Bednarz, associate professor of geography, is in a unique position to know. For the past year and a half she’s served on the W Course Advisory Committee, which reviews faculty proposals for courses designed to meet the writing-intensive requirement. This fall Bednarz also went before her fellow committee members with a proposal of her own.

 

Sarah Bednarz, associate professor of geography, serves on the W Course Advisory Committee. She also recently won approval for her own W course.

Sarah Bednarz, associate professor of geography, serves on the W Course Advisory Committee. She also recently won approval for her own W course.

“I’m not only on the committee, but I’ve been an applicant, and I
can say the proposal process is very straightforward. Once faculty
members access the University Writing Center Web site, they’ll find the
information is all there. The requirements are clear and there are
several documents we’ve developed over the last year, checklists and
rubrics that help walk you through the process,” says Bednarz.

Once the proposal is submitted, the applicant meets in person with the committee.

“We’ve
started inviting the applicants to come talk with us, instead of just
getting proposals on paper,” she explains. “We usually have so many
questions that it makes sense to give people the opportunity to come
and meet face-to-face. It has really facilitated the process. I wish
all committees on campus did that.”

The meetings are typically low-key and collegial.

“It’s
definitely not the Inquisition,” Bendarz notes with a laugh. The
committee functions well as a group in part because of the members’
common commitment to writing in the undergraduate curriculum.

“Our
basic philosophy is that writing and thinking are intertwined,” Bednarz
explains. “You really can’t separate them. Giving our students the
opportunity to think deeply, through writing, about their discipline
allows them to become really expert in the subject.”

One thing
that surprises Bednarz in reviewing proposals is how many courses fit
so naturally within the W course guidelines. She points to a recent
proposal from the accounting department for a W course on auditing.

“If
you’ve ever served on the board of an organization,” she notes, “you’ve
probably received reports from independent auditors. Those reports are
pretty significant pieces of writing. We don’t often think of
accountants as writers, but in fact they do a lot of writing. It’s a
very technical, precise writing, but nonetheless the accountants have
to think deeply about the work and express their thoughts clearly and
effectively. So, the proposal for that accounting course was just a
natural fit.”

What advice does Bednarz have for others preparing a W course proposal?

“It’s
so easy for us to fall back on the research paper,” Bednarz
acknowledges, “but there may be better ways, shorter projects that are
better linked to the kind of experience students will have after they
graduate in a particular discipline. Try to think innovatively about
ways writing can enhance learning.”

For many instructors the least enjoyable part of teaching writing is grading papers. Not only is it time-consuming, it’s often baffling. One paper has solid supporting evidence, but a weak introduction and a practically non-existent conclusion. Another paper does little but parrot back your lectures, yet its sentences flow smoothly and convincingly. A third argues persuasively but is laden with surface errors. Which one is best? What grade does each deserve?

Many writing instructors have turned to rubrics to help demystify the grading of written assignments. A rubric, or scoring sheet, is a list of the basic traits the instructor values for that assignment. The number and nature of the categories varies from instructor to instructor and even from assignment to assignment.

For example, the five key traits on a research paper might be quality of research, development of ideas, organization, format, and style/mechanics. The number and nature of the categories varies from instructor to instructor and even from assignment to assignment. For a marketing report, the instructor might feel audience awareness is crucial. For a biology paper, the instructor might think that demonstrating knowledge of basic scientific principles is the most important criteria.

For each category, the instructor assigns a point value. Each category can be worth the same number of points, or some can be weighted more heavily. If you feel developing a persuasive argument is more significant than an absence of surface errors, for instance, you can assign more points to the argument category.

The instructor also develops a description for each point level in each category and shares them with students. For instance, the description of a paper that achieves a maximum score in the research category might read like this: “The paper draws on five or more primary sources and demonstrates a critical awareness of the relative merits of those sources. Quotations and data are seamlessly integrated into the student’s own sentences and contribute to the persuasiveness of the argument.”

The description for a paper earning the lowest score for research might say “The paper draws on only one or two secondary sources and offers no assessment of the worth of the information presented. The use of source material is awkward and fails to support the student’s argument.”

Whatever kind of rubric you develop, your students will likely be familiar with the concept, since rubrics are increasingly popular in secondary education. They’re also employed routinely in evaluating writing on standardized tests, situations in which multiple graders need to adhere to consistent standards and process a daunting number of papers in minimal time. Such situations highlight some of the genuine advantages of using rubrics:

* They simplify the grading process, allowing a reader to move more rapidly through assignments. * They clarify expectations for both instructors and students. Some instructors seek student input when developing a rubric. * They reduce the subjectivity of the process by focusing the grader’s attention on specified criteria. * They reduce or eliminate the need for written comments. Rather than writing a note about the paucity of a paper’s development, the instructor can simply check the “development” box on the form and refer the student to the description of what constitutes adequate development of ideas.

Of course, rubrics aren’t perfect. Developing them takes time, and relying on them too much can lead to formulaic assignments and responses. Some students may also find them too impersonal, which is why many instructors offer to discuss papers in person for students who want a more detailed response.

If you’re looking for a way to respond to papers fairly and efficiently, though, you might want to consider a rubric.

For more on rubrics, click to the pedagogy pages of the faculty section of the UWC Web site: http://uwc.tamu.edu.