Here's the writing program evaluation, abridged into 8 pages. If you didn't have time to read it before, at least read this version. We encourage you all to read the full version as well.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TEACHING OF WRITING
AT
21 January 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We were invited to visit
Recommendation 2: Provide training and support for graduate instructors.
Recommendation 3: Create a University Writing Program (UWP).
Recommendation 4: Establish tenure-line administrative positions and an advisory board for the UWP.
Recommendation 5: Require two composition courses of all students.
Recommendation 6: Staff composition courses with a diverse group of graduate instructors, administrators of the UWP, full-time faculty, and post-docs.
Recommendation 7: Require one or two additional writing courses in a student's major.
Recommendation 8: Provide appropriate support for writers whose home language is not English.
Recommendation 9: Establish a developmental writing course.
Recommendation 10: Provide necessary resources for the
Given the nature of the Binghamton student body, any program development must frame the generic model of its clientele not as privileged, U.S.-born, fluent speakers of English (with scattered groups that differ from this norm), but as first-generation college students, international students, and students whose home language is not standard English, a consideration that gives the University's writing program a central importance. It hardly needs to be emphasized that academic writing is the most fundamental skill for success in college and in the professions and also the one most difficult for students from marginalized or previously excluded groups to master. This fact does not mean
Writing is presently being taught in a variety of ways at
But as many people recognize, while the University grew over the past two decades, resources did not keep pace; as a result,
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEACHING OF
The Undergraduate Writing Requirement
[. . .]
Our meetings with undergraduates underscored this picture of structural neglect. The six upper-classmen were clearly unusually bright and engaged, standing as collective evidence of the overall positive academic environment at
A counterpart of this neglect is the excessive reliance on graduate student labor. The English department teaches the majority of the “C” courses, but with only thirty faculty members, the department must teach large courses simply to serve its hundreds of majors. This leaves little time for grading essays or offering writing seminars. Not surprisingly, of the 66 sections offered last fall by the English department, 65% were taught by graduate instructors, 30% by adjuncts (most of whom are presently graduate students in the English department), and 5% by full-time faculty. Functionally, "C" courses in the English department are taught almost entirely by graduate students. Nor does the department as a whole show much interest in the theory and practice of teaching writing, even though a Rhetoric concentration is officially on the books. Composition specialists have described a history of being marginalized or ignored by colleagues in literature. The department prefers administrative control of composition because of an understandable desire to support its graduate students. Yet for the past several years, there has been no teacher training course for graduate students. (Fortunately, such a course will be re-instated in spring 2008.)
Intensive Teaching of Writing
Despite the existence of several fine programs and the work of some heroic individuals, Harpur College’s resources for intensive writing courses—a service needed by more and more of the student body—are, if anything, even more inadequate than the resources for teaching the general population.
[. . .]
Of the 600 EOP students, about 135-140 students attend a five-and-a-half-week session in the summer of their freshman year. Depending on assessment test results, the students are placed in writing courses arranged in three groups of difficulty; ESL classes are capped at nineteen, the higher levels at 20-21. The courses are staffed by eight graduate instructors and eight undergraduate TA’s. During the regular academic year, many EOP students live in the
Once again, resources for this important work are inadequate. ESL classes need to be very small to be effective; nineteen per course is too many, and the stipend paid to graduate student instructors--$2000 per course—is an exploitative rate. Kim Allen-Gleed, the Associate Director of Student Support Services, is also the summer Rhetoric Coordinator. No writing professional teaches in the summer program or oversees it. During the year, Allen-Gleed contributes uncompensated time to act as the EOP academic advisor during the regular year. In that capacity, she only encounters students in academic trouble; there appear to be no other ways of tracking the progress of EOP students after the pre-freshman summer. Of the fifty tutors in the Campos/Robeson Center, only four do walk-in writing instruction; Linda Lisman, who recruits and supervises a staff of sixty, works half time and has no academic rank. Still, in the words of a colleague, she does “a fantastic job.”
In former years, EOP students qualified for a series of Rhetoric courses that acted as “first step” writing courses; but according to the EOP academic advisor, the English Department decided the courses were no longer necessary and replaced them with the regular offerings of English 112 and 115. According to Linda Lisman, many EOP students are closed out of these courses because of limited space. What this means is that although not all 600 EOP students need developmental writing courses (many are in the program because of low math scores), the many who do need them are dumped into the general population after a short summer program, where they are not guaranteed a place.
These resource deficits, as we have said, appear to have resulted from the institution’s rapid growth; it’s less clear why the English Department allowed both their graduate training course and the “first step” rhetoric courses (the only developmental writing courses offered in Harpur College) to expire. These are only two reasons why the teaching of writing needs to be moved out of the English Department as soon as possible, as we recommend below.
Recommendations for Immediate Action
We begin with two recommendations that should go into effect immediately:
Recommendation 1: Assure a manageable, equitable teaching
The course teaching load of English graduate instructors increased several years ago from two per year to four per year without an increase in compensation. We were also told that graduate students are sometimes invited to teach a third course in a given semester; we met one who is currently doing this as a "stopgap" measure (in the words of the DGS) and who has about fifty students in his third course. Not surprisingly,
The three-course load is unconscionable for any reason. Even the two-course load (which amounts in practice to forty writing students per semester) is excessive, since no one can effectively teach that many writing students, and no graduate students can give adequate time to their studies under such a schedule.
Recommendation 2: Provide training and support for graduate instructors.
The English department has not been offering formal training in teaching to its graduate instructors. Fortunately, Kelly Kinney has received permission to institute such a course for new teachers in spring 2008 (though it does not cover current Graduate instructors), and the course has the support of the Department and most graduate instructors.
An instructor's own high level of literacy does not necessarily translate into good writing pedagogy. Responsible teachers who lack appropriate training may spend an excessive proportion of their time in class preparation and paper grading.
The college should also provide ongoing mentoring to these instructors, in the form of staff meetings and classroom observations. The mentors will then be in the position to write teaching letters when the graduate students enter the academic job market.
LONG-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
Our general recommendations concern the structure of a University Writing Program; additional staffing of a UWP; undergraduate writing requirements; writing instruction for ESL and other special needs students; and structural support for those who administer and teach writing.
Recommendation 3: Create a University Writing Program (UWP).
The new University Writing Program should be independent of the English department, answerable to the Dean, and staffed by ladder faculty. Three models are available for the freestanding writing program. First, it can be a program whose tenurable faculty have appointments in academic departments (usually but not necessarily English). Among neighboring universities, Cornell follows this model. Or the program may itself grant tenure to its ladder faculty;
[. . .]
Composition studies is a growing academic discipline whose PhDs are much in demand nationwide. Hiring and retaining expert composition administrators and faculty requires the development of graduate and advanced undergraduate writing and rhetoric instruction. Although our charge does not include English department policy, we strongly advise that department to offer Rhetoric and Composition as a graduate specialization. We also recommend revitalizing the undergraduate advanced rhetoric and composition courses, with an undergraduate major in rhetoric and composition. As Binghamton University develops first-year writing courses, upper-level undergraduate courses in writing and rhetoric, and graduate courses in the theory and practice of composition and rhetoric, it develops a community of people—undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty—who self-describe as writers and who are engaged in understanding the role of writing, rhetoric, and literacy in twenty-first-century global cultures and communities. Writing is not only a skill needed by undergraduate students; it is also an intellectual field of inquiry around which the discipline of composition and rhetoric is establishing a growing presence in
The UWP should work in close collaboration with an advisory panel of faculty chosen from several fields. Such connections will keep composition instruction responsive to the writing that students are doing in other courses, and will conversely help faculty across the disciplines understand what their students are learning in their composition courses and what additional instruction or mentoring students might need in disciplinary courses.
[. . .]
In both composition courses, enrollment should never exceed 20 and should ideally be set at a lower number. Some time ago, the professional organizations of English studies formulated guidelines for class enrollment and teaching load for composition studies; these guidelines continue to shape responsible practice in writing programs. Both the Association of Departments of English
The syllabi of all required writing courses should take instruction in composition seriously, requiring page minimums and emphasizing the process of writing and the value of revision. The curriculum and pedagogy for these courses should adopt or adapt the learning outcomes recommended by the national Council of Writing Program Administrators
Because writing is best learned in an intellectual context, these courses should not be decontextualized writing skill courses but should instead be "themed" or "content-based" courses. Experienced teachers should, in consultation with UWP administrators, develop composition courses whose materials cohere with the instructors' own disciplinary or personal interests. Topics of such syllabi might range from genetic diversity to Chinese literature in translation. At both
[. . .]
Finally, we recommend that the UWP appoint a fixed number of post-docs with distinguished records of achievement in academic graduate programs for no more than two or three years, with a teaching load of no more than four courses a year. This will attract high-quality post-docs because they will be able to continue their research while acquiring pedagogical experience, making them attractive as eventual candidates for tenure-track positions. As appropriate, post-docs may receive course release for pedagogical projects, such as surveys of writing or designs for special programs. The hiring of post-docs should be a collaboration of UWP directors and the departments that represent the disciplines in which post-doc candidates have trained.
[. . .]
Recommendation 9: Establish a developmental writing course.
Students whose placement tests indicate they are not ready for college composition instruction should have the option of a preparatory course (usually labeled a "basic" or "developmental" writing course). Some universities do not offer this instruction themselves but instead partner with a local community college whose developmental writing courses transfer into the university. Others (including
[. . .]
Whether the UWP will allow exemptions from the writing requirement, and if so, how many. Exemptions at other universities are made on the basis of AP credit, CLEP credit, ACT or SAT test scores, or placement testing. We recommend that placement testing be used only for placement in the most appropriate starting course but that it not be used to waive the composition requirement. We also recommend against the substitution of CLEP credit or ACT or SAT test scores for the composition requirement; AP credit is a more accurate measure. We recommend that in no case should both composition courses be waived. We note that as the new program is phased in,