Senate Members in Attendance: Phil Sell; Richard Plagge; Keith Paton; Maggie Brown; Angi Caster; Vickie Ropp; Glen Avantaggio; Eric Baer; Michael Cicero;  Toni Castro;   Jack Harton; Lea Ann Pratt

Issues

Writing Intensive course requirement for the A.A. degree

This discussion was continued from the previous Senate meeting.  Phil Sell noted that the motion had been tabled at the last meeting.

The motion:

The Faculty Senate proposes that there be a Writing Intensive Course requirement as part of the Associate of Arts Degree.  Specifically the requirement would be one, 3-5 credit course that includes writing as an integral and major part of its curriculum.   The criteria for designating a course as Writing Intensive (WI) are to be developed by a committee formed by the Instructional Cabinet in consultation with the Senate.   This requirement may be met within the current 90 credit requirement by completing a WI course that also meets the distribution requirement.  It cannot be satisfied by means of communication requirement courses.

Discussion followed.  Phil stated that a request had been submitted from the Writing Department to amend the motion as currently stated.  The proposed amendment read as follows:

The Faculty Senate proposes that a Writing Intensive Course requirement be considered for the Associate of Arts degree.  The specific of this course will be determined by a committee formed by the Instructional Cabinet in consultation with the Senate; this committee should include a member from each division as well as two Writing Department members.  The committee's task is to create the criteria and evaluation for Writing Intensive Course requirements to be met within the current 90 credit requirement by completing a course approved as WI.  Any potential implications of such a requirement--issues of curriculum development, grading standards, and institutional support (e.g., funding or release time)--will also be researched by the committee and their findings presented to the Senate for requirement adoption not later than                                      [???].

Eric Baer asked for clarification on why the Instructional Cabinet was included in the amendment.  Phil noted that isn't a practical matter for us to do so.  It is more in their area to establish those types of procedures.

Michael Cicero asked for clarification on which amendment we are currently speaking.   Phil stated that we are still discussing the original motion.

Angi Caster voiced the concern of the Writing Department that writing instruction not be taken over by other departments.  The Writing Department is also concerned about demands on writing faculty to provide support for this and other things, including the Center for Teaching Excellence. There are multiple issues that are causing concern amongst the writing faculty.  They are still in favor of the requirement, but they want to be sure that they know how it is going to happen, in terms of curriculum development, grading standards, etc.  Kitty Richmore, an observer representing student government, stated that students were concerned about having to take additional writing intensive courses beyond the requirement because of scheduling issues. Angie affirmed the fact that we need to have "buy-in" at both the colleague and student levels to have it be successful. Maggie Brown noted that Social Science Division members are still mixed in their opinion on this issue and were given another handout to help inform them of this proposed requirement by Wendy Swyt. 

Eric noted his concern that he didn't want to see this issue take years to be implemented.  It was pointed out that there is a deadline at the bottom of the proposed amendment to see that this hopefully doesn't happen.  Angi stated that by forming this committee as written in the amendment specific issues and areas of concern could be addressed and then presented.

Discussion followed as to the potential concerns of students and the question whether Writing 101 should be a prerequisite to the WI courses. It was agreed that it would not be practical or possible with our current resources.

Phil refocused the discussion by commenting that we are all in agreement that students need better skills in writing. The issue here is "Will the writing intensive requirement result in that?"  He wants to know whether this requirement will promote more writing in courses or will the same people just continue with their current requirements.  Maggie questioned whether there had been any research on whether writing more will make you a better writer.  She asked if others knew of any.   Angi noted that she was sure that Wendy would not be supporting this if the evidence were not there.

Phil questioned other members of the Senate as to if they would require additional writing.  Glen noted that he already required a strong writing component.  Eric said that it would help him when hiring future instructors and making courses in the department writing intensive and not just by instructor.  Glen noted that this would help make things better for the student and their overall learning experience.  He also questioned the availability of tutors specifically for the writing intensive courses.   The tutors would be knowledgeable of the subject area as well as possessing strong writing skills.  The ramifications of having the tutors also needs to be discussed before making this a requirement. Michael commented that the motion on the table is unsupportable as currently written.  He noted that it needed to state the entire package and that all of the details have been worked out. Once this has been accomplished, he would then take it back to his division to see if they support it. As it is now, it is really premature.  Keith noted that his division is not supportive of it as it is currently written. Dick stated that his division doesn't foresee much change, but may require more writing in their courses.  He liked that it showed that we value and encourage writing in all of our classes, not just the Writing classes.  Angi commented that may be that they would see the utility of writing.

Maggie Brown called for the question. Vickie Ropp seconded the motion.  Motion failed.

Angi Caster made a motion which was seconded by Eric Baer. The motion:

The Faculty Senate proposes that a Writing Intensive Course requirement be considered for the Associate of Arts degree.  The specific of this course will be determined by a committee formed by the Instructional Cabinet in consultation with the Senate; this committee should include a member from each division as well as two Writing Department members.  The committee's task is to create the criteria and evaluation for Writing Intensive Course requirements to be met within the current 90 credit requirement by completing a course approved as WI.  Any potential implications of such a requirement--issues of curriculum development, grading standards, and institutional support (e.g., funding or release time)--will also be researched by the committee and their findings presented to the Senate for requirement adoption not later than April 5, 2000.

Discussion followed.  This motion would allow the details of the writing intensive course requirement to be worked out. Issues that the senate would like to see addressed included those listed in the motion as well as effect on AAS, tutors, availability of writing intensive course (evening as well as day), etc. Michael called for the question. Motion passed.

Phil will communicate this motion to the Instructional Cabinet and ask that they form a committee to bring back a more detailed plan for this requirement.

The next Senate meeting will be January 19, 2000, since the first Wednesday of January will not meet since it will be the first day of Winter quarter.  The next topic of discussion will be a coordinated studies requirement for the AA degree.

Meeting adjourned 4:00 pm

Lea Ann Pratt
Faculty Senate Secretary
December 21, 1999