I am honored to submit my eighth and ... - Boston University



Annual ReportAcademic Year 2011-2012Arts & Sciences Writing ProgramBoston UniversitySubmitted byProfessor Joseph BizupAssistant Dean and DirectorJune 29, 2012ContentsI. Overview4A. Introduction to Program4B. Executive Summary4C. Story Opportunities6II. Faculty, Staff, and Leadership7A. Overview7B. Program Administration and Leadership8C. Full-Time Lecturers9D. Graduate-Student Instructors10E. Part-Time Lecturers12F. CAS Departmental Faculty13G. Writing Board14H. Professional Development15I. Program Governance / Faculty Engagement17III. Research and Scholarship20IV. Undergraduate Education20A. WR 100 and WR 15021B. ESL Courses (WR 097, WR 098, WR100)22C. Basic Writing Courses23D. WR-Equivalent Courses (including CH 111/112)23E. Writing Center23F. Writing in the Disciplines25G. Writing Initiatives in Schools Other than CAS27H. ESL Placement28I. Assessment28J. WR: Journal of the Arts & Sciences Writing Program29K. Awards and Prizes29V. Graduate Education30A. Training and Supervision30B. Certificate in the Teaching of Writing30VI. Community Life31VII. Outreach31A. Web-Based Outreach31B. Outreach to Community32VIII. Fundraising32IX. Facilities and Infrastructure32X. Multimedia Information33XI. Looking to the Future33Appendices34I. OverviewI.A. Introduction to ProgramThe primary mission of the Arts & Sciences Writing Program is to help Boston University undergraduate students acquire writing and communication skills and more general habits of mind essential both to their full participation in the intellectual life of the university and to their future personal, professional, and civic lives. The program pursues this mission directly, through its courses and tutorials, and indirectly, by supporting faculty, programs, departments, colleges, and schools across the university in their efforts to help their own students develop as writers. The Writing Program contributes to graduate education as well, by offering pedagogical training and teaching opportunities to graduate students from a range of departments and programs. It also aspires to leadership in the national conversation on writing pedagogy.Established in 2001, the Writing Program’s main curricular responsibility is to offer the two-semester sequence of topic-based writing seminars (WR 100, WR 150) through which most BU students fulfill their writing requirement. The program also offers two courses (WR 097, WR 098) for non-native speakers of English who require additional preparation, and it maintains a Writing Center that provides individual writing tutorials. Over one hundred people teach or tutor in the program, including over forty full-time lecturers. In AY 2011-2012, the program offered 372 classes to 6,487 students. I.B. Executive SummaryIn AY 2011-2012, we made modest revisions to the WR 100/150 sequence. Our major curricular innovations took place in the area of ESL teaching. We offered several new ESL courses (piloted in AY 2010-2011) and a new training course on tutoring ESL students (also piloted in AY 2010-2011). Service and professional development were major themes. We established explicit expectations in the areas of service and professional development for full-time Writing Program lecturers; we instituted beginning-of-year conversations with all full-time lecturers; we taught a number of faculty seminars. Moreover, several important program projects—working groups on how faculty use their time, on creative writing, and on using the Little Red Schoolhouse, as well as the development of an "IL" designation for courses emphasizing information literacy—were initiated by the faculty themselves.?If we were to identify one thing that characterized the program this year, it would be the voluntary efforts of many Writing Program faculty in a broad range of initiatives. These efforts were encouraged, we believe, by our work over the past few years to develop a stable and participatory governance structure for the program. These efforts will bear fruit in coming years as Writing Program faculty bring ideas and innovations emerging from them (e.g., new ways of responding to students’ writing, new ways of organizing class discussions, new online resources for teaching argument and style) into their classrooms.Curriculum: Every summer we revise the guidelines for WR 100 and WR 150 in light of the previous year’s experience (Section IV.A.). This year, we offered a new topic-based version of WR 098 and a new version of WR 100 specifically for ESL students (Section IV.B.). Both of these courses were piloted in AY 2010-2011. Our new training course to prepare Writing Center tutors to work with ESL students (WR 598: Tutoring ESL Students in Writing) was officially accepted as a two-credit course.Expectations for Full-Time Faculty: Following an extensive process of consultation and drafting with CAS and the Faculty Issues Committee, the Writing Program established explicit expectations in the areas of teaching, service, and professional development for full-time Writing Program lecturers.Professional Development/Faculty Engagement: In conjunction with these curricular refinements, we have continued to enhance the resources and opportunities for professional development and faculty engagement we make available to our instructors. The institution of beginning-of-year conversations with all full-time lecturers, the continuing success of our faculty seminars, and the approval of WR 598 as an official two-credit course deserve special notice (See Sections IV.E. and Appendix F).Writing Board: This year, at the request of the Dean of the College, the Writing Board undertook a study of the state of writing instruction across CAS. The Board canvassed a number of departments, drafted a faculty survey that it will administer in Fall 2012, and facilitated a meeting of the CAS faculty on April 25, 2012 to discuss the state of writing in CAS. (See Section II.G.).Collaborations and Outreach: The Writing Program has continued to collaborate with other entities both within and outside the institution. The program supports writing in several departments and schools, including Chemistry, History, SED, KHC, and ENG Biomedical Engineering. Beyond the institution, we are continuing to support the Boston public schools by participating in Success Boston, a collaboration among Boston Public Schools, the Boston Foundation, the Boston Private Industry Council and other nonprofits, and many Boston-area colleges and universities.Relocation: The program will relocate to the new Student Services Center at 100 Bay State Road in in August 2012 (See Section IX).Recruitment: Several members of the Writing Program’s full-time faculty left the program to pursue other opportunities, and the program also received an incremental full-time line through part-time lecturer consolidation. The program conducted a national search to fill its open positions and hired four new full-time faculty members for AY 2012-2013.Metcalf Award: Writing Program senior lecturer Marisa Milanese was one of two recipients of the 2012 Metcalf Award for Excellence in Teaching.I.C. Story OpportunitiesWe believe that stories about the following Writing Program activities, services, and initiatives would have broad appeal:ESL initiatives/ESL students: Over the past several years, the number of BU students whose primary language is not English has increased dramatically. The Writing Program has responded by revising its ESL courses and by improving and increasing the tutorial support it provides to these students. The stories of these students are fascinating and worth writing about. (See Section IV.B).The Theater Now (WR 100 and WR 150): This initiative continues to expand. This year, we drafted a proposal for a broader Arts Now program, modeled in Theater Now, for the Dean of the College. (See Section IV.A.).Writing Program Faculty as Scholar/Teachers: Many members of the Writing Program faculty are active and accomplished writers and scholars. When BU publications write about our faculty, they tend to focus on their teaching and their courses. It would be exciting to see our faculty’s intellectual and creative work featured in a story. Success Boston: Maria Milanese, Sarah Madsen Hardy, and Gwen Kordonowy have been volunteering all year with Success Boston, a collaboration among Boston Public Schools, the Boston Foundation, the Boston Private Industry Council and other nonprofits, and many Boston-area colleges and universities. Specifically, these lecturers participated in the Boston Public School's Advanced Placement Initiative Vertical Teaming program, designed to promote collaboration between area high-school and college-level language-arts teachers. The volunteer work these lecturers are doing in the service of the Boston Public Schools would make a fine story.Relocation to 100 Bay State Road: For the first time, the Writing Program’s faculty will be housed under a single roof. While some publications have already written about the new building, it would be interesting to see a story on how the new building is being used by its tenants, and more specifically on how the new building is influencing the program’s work and teaching.Metcalf Award: Writing Program senior lecturer Marisa Milanese was one of two recipients of the 2012 Metcalf Award for Excellence in Teaching.II. Faculty, Staff, and LeadershipII.A. OverviewThe Writing Program has the following staffing structure:Directorial Positions:Director:Provides intellectual and administrative leadership to the Writing Program. Carries a 1/1 teaching load, divided between Writing Program and English.Associate Director: Assists the director in all aspects of the program’s administration. Carries a 2/1 teaching load in the Writing Program.Director of ESL: Supervises the Writing Program’s ESL offerings and ESL placement and participates in the general administration of the program. Carries a 2/2 teaching load, including one linguistics course for English. Beginning in AY 2012-2013, the title of this position will be changed to Associate Director of the Writing Program for ESL, and the teaching load will be reduced to 2/1. These changes were made to align the title of the position with the program’s administrative structure and in response to the increasing administrative responsibilities associated with this position resulting from significant recent increases in the number of international students attending the university.Administrative Positions:Program Administrator:Manages payroll, appointments, scheduling, budget, etc.Academic Administrator:Manages curriculum, course catalog, scheduling, assessment, etc.Senior Staff Assistant:Staffs front desk, coordinates Writing Center schedule, performs miscellaneous office duties. Coordinator Positions (leadership positions open to Writing Program lecturers):Writing Center Coordinators:Two positions. Responsible for administering the Writing Center, including selecting, training, and supervising tutors.Curriculum Coordinators:Two two-year rotating positions. Mentor Writing Program faculty seeking consultations about their teaching, review WR 100 and WR 150 syllabi, help to develop teaching resources for faculty, participate in administrative/directorial staff meetings, conduct class observations, co-edit WR, the Writing Program’s online journal of student writing.Teaching Positions:Full-Time Lecturers (44):Teach three courses or perform equivalent service each semester. In AY 2011-2012, full-time lecturers taught 59% of WR courses.Part-Time Lecturers Teach up to four courses per academic year, (26 Fall, 22 Spring): usually one or two per semester. In AY 2011-2012, part-time lecturers taught 22% of WR courses. Teaching Fellows (7):Graduate students from the English Department who teach one course per semester in the Writing Program. In AY 2011-2012, teaching fellows taught 4% of WR courses.Grad. Writing Fellows:Advanced graduate students chosen from a range of(24 Fall, 25 Spring) departments through a competitive application process. Teach one course per semester. In AY 2011-2012, graduate writing fellows taught 13% of WR courses.Writing Board:Advisory board of tenured or tenure-line CAS faculty chaired by director of the Writing Program.II.B. Program Administration and LeadershipDirector:Joseph Bizup (Fall 2008–present)Associate Director:Christopher Walsh (Fall 2005–present)Director of ESL:Maria Zlateva (Fall 2002–present)Program Administrator:Daniel Ivey (July 2000–present)Academic Administrator:Alyssa Hall (Feb. 2011–present)Senior Staff Assistant:Emily Goldstein (Feb. 2012–presentBrook Davis (May 2011–Dec. 2011)Writing Center Coordinators:Maria Gapotchenko (Fall 2006–present)David Shawn (Fall 2006–present)Curriculum Coordinators:Marisa Milanese (Fall 2010–spring 2012)Ivan Eubanks (Fall 2012–present)Curriculum Committee Co-Chairs:Christina Michaud (Fall 2011–present)Gwen Kordonowy (Fall 2011–present)Faculty Issues Committee Co-Chairs:Tony Wallace (Fall 2011–present)Carrie Bennett (Fall 2011–present)Co-Editors of WR:Marisa Milanese (Fall 2010–spring 2012)Ivan Eubanks (Fall 2011–present)Associate Editors of WR:Ms. Kimberly Gomez (Fall 2009–present)Gwen Kordonowy (Fall 2011–present)Sarah Madsen Hardy (Fall 2011–present)Managing Editor of WR:Alyssa Hall (Fall 2008–present)II.C. Full-Time LecturersFull-time lecturers are hired through external searches (although part-time lecturers and those with BU graduate degrees are not disqualified from applying). They teach a 3/3 course load and have specific minimum service and professional development obligations. Because the Writing Program’s core courses—WR 100, WR 150—are topic-based writing seminars (see Appendix A), the program prefers to hire as lecturers talented teachers with terminal degrees in a range of fields. This approach to hiring makes it incumbent on the Writing Program to offer its faculty robust training and support. For a detailed profile of the Writing Program faculty, see Appendix C, Tables 1-4.In response to an application submitted this year, CAS consolidated some of the Writing Program’s part-time positions into an additional full-time lecturer position, effective July 1, 2012. This position was filled through an external search as detailed pensation and Responsibilities: In AY 2011-2012, full-time lecturers received a base salary of $45,400 (w/o Ph.D.) or $46,400 (w/ Ph. D.) with benefits. Resignations: The program has had three full-time resignations this year:Allison Adair has accepted a full-time position at Boston College.Scott Challener has enrolled in the Ph.D. program in English at Rutgers University.Bradley Queen has accepted a full-time position at Irvine University.Non-renewals: In the spring of 2011, one full time lecturer was not renewed. As this decision was not reversed, the lecturer’s employment with the university ended on June 30, 2012. Recruitment: The Writing Program conducted a national search to fill multiple openings. As a result of this search, four full-time lecturers were hired to start July 1 or September 1, 2012:Anna Panszczyk (Ph.D. in English and Comparative Literature, University of Chapel Hill). Appointment effective July 1, 2012.Andrea Volpe (Ph.D. in History, Rutgers University). Appointment effective July 1, 2012.Jinrong Li (Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and Technology, Iowa State University). Appointment effective September 1, 2012.Leslie Yoder (Ph.D. in French Language and Literature, Boston University). Appointment effective July 1, 2012.Leaves: The following full-time lecturers had leaves in AY 2011-2012: Allison Adair, paid, spring semester (maternity) Karen Bourrier, unpaid, fall and spring semesters (received two-year postdoctoral fellowship from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada; scheduled to return July 1, 2013)Deborah Breen, unpaid, fall and spring semesters (temporary relocation, scheduled to return July 1, 2013)Michelle Hoover (requested one-year leave without pay to work on novel) Rebecca Kinraide, paid, spring semester (maternity)Christina Michaud, paid, spring semester (maternity)Promotions to Senior Lecturer: This year, the Writing Program nominated two senior lecturers for promotion to senior lecturer-master level and eight lecturers for promotion to senior lecturer. Of these ten nominees, four received promotions. The following lecturers were promoted to senior lecturer, effective July 1, 2012:Theodora GossWilliam MarxJames PastoKimberly Shuckra-GomezII.D. Graduate-Student InstructorsTwo sorts of graduate-student instructors teach in the Writing Program:Teaching Fellows: Teaching fellows are graduate students who teach in the Writing Program as a condition of their departmental funding. Ph.D. students in English generally serve as Writing Program teaching fellows in their second year of study. In some years, the Editorial Institute has funded one teaching fellow per semester to teach in the Writing Program.Graduate Writing Fellows: Graduate writing fellows are graduate-student instructors chosen from across the university through a competitive selection process. Most graduate writing fellows are Ph.D. students in GRS, but we do consider applications from non-GRS students. Likewise, most graduate writing fellows are in the mid-to-late stages of their graduate careers, but we do consider applications from students who are less far along.Graduate Writing Fellowship Allocation: In AY 2011-2012, as in recent years, the Writing Program was authorized to award 44 semesters of fellowship support, all of which were utilized. This year, the program received six additional GWF semesters from the Provost, over the base of 44, for replacement coverage for full-time lecturers. We assigned six full-time lecturers, each of whom was released from one WR course, to teach sections of the Kilachand Honors College First-Year Studio (KHC ST 111 in the fall and ST 112 in the spring). Our expectation is that this arrangement will be ongoing, allowing us to award 50 semesters of GWF support (an allocation from GRS of 44 semesters plus 6 semesters for KHC) each academic year.Terms of Appointment: Teaching fellows and graduate writing fellows receive the standard GRS stipend ($9,650 per semester in AY 2011-2012), health insurance coverage, and continuing student fees. Both teaching fellows and graduate writing fellows teach one course (WR 100 or WR 150) per semester. In AY 2011-2012, graduate-student instructors taught 64 sections, or 17% of the total (see Appendix C, Tables 1 and 2).Renewal of Graduate Writing Fellowships: GWFs are awarded on a semester-by-semester basis, with the expectation of renewal for up to three additional consecutive semesters. This four-semester limit is not mandated by GRS. We adopted it to ensure that we will be able to award fellowships to 10–12 new applicants each year. We believe that offering any fewer new awards would threaten our ability to cultivate regular relationships with departments. This four-semester limit does not adversely affect the quality of undergraduate instruction.Graduate Writing Fellowship Selection Process: Graduate Writing Fellowships are open to Ph.D. students from any BU department or program, although preference is given to GRS applicants. The selection procedure is as follows:October: solicit applications for fellowships to begin the following Fall (letter, c.v., transcript, writing sample)November: contact recommenders and directors of graduate studies for selected applicants; selection committee reviews applicationsDecember: selection committee conducts interviews with approximately 20 applicants and determines awards and a ranked waiting list This year’s selection committee had the following membership: Prof. Christopher Walsh (associate director and committee chair)Dr. James Pasto (lecturer)Dr. Theodora Goss (lecturer)Jared Champion (graduate writing fellow, American and New England Studies)Eric Jarvis (graduate writing fellow, American and New England Studies)Emily Griffiths Jones (graduate writing fellow, English)Applicants awarded fellowships are required to enroll in WR 698 the spring before they begin teaching in the Writing Program. Those placed on the program’s ranked waiting list are also required to enroll in WR 698 and are offered fellowships as they become available. GRS has agreed to pay WR 698 tuition for these students. In addition to increasing the transparency of the selection process, the waiting list also helps us maintain a proper balance between the number of fellowships that go to continuing fellows and the number that go to new applicants.Selection for Fall 2012: The selection process for graduate writing fellowships for the fall of 2012 was highly competitive. We received 55 applications from students in 16 different departments or programs. We initially offered fellowships to ten new applicants and offered seven applicants places on the waiting list. All seven elected to remain on the list and enroll in WR 698. Five of these students have since received fellowships.Distribution of Fellowships: In AY 2011-2012, students from the following units served as teaching fellows in the Writing Program or held graduate writing fellowships: American and New England Studies ProgramDepartment of ArchaeologyDepartment of Art and Architecture HistoryDepartment of Classical StudiesDepartment of EnglishDepartment of HistoryDepartment of MusicologyDepartment of Political ScienceDepartment of SociologyDivision of Religious and Theological StudiesEditorial InstituteStudents from the following departments have been awarded fellowships for the Fall 2012 (see Appendix C for list of recipients): American and New England Studies ProgramDepartment of ArchaeologyDepartment of Art and Architecture HistoryDepartment of Classical StudiesDepartment of EnglishDepartment of HistoryDepartment of History of Art and ArchitectureDepartment of Political ScienceDepartment of MusicologyDepartment of PhilosophyDepartment of SociologyDivision of Religious and Theological StudiesII.E. Part-Time LecturersDuring AY 2011-2012, 27 part-time lecturers taught in the program. Their courses accounted for 22% of the program’s total offerings. The rate of compensation for part-time lecturers in AY 2011-2012 was $6,000 per course. (In the fall of 2010, this single-tier pay schedule replaced the previous two-tiered schedule, under which part-time lecturers having taught fewer than five semesters in the College received $5,500 per course and those having taught five or more semesters in the College received $6,000 per course.)The percentage of courses taught by part-time faculty each academic year has remained fairly constant since the early days of the program, averaging around 25% (see Appendix C, Table 2). These annual figures, however, mask an undesirable seasonal volatility in the number of sections taught by part-time faculty (see Appendix C, Table 2). This volatility arises because the program offers more sections in the fall than in the spring. This year, for example, the program offered 200 total sections in the fall but only 171 sections in the spring, a reduction of approximately 15%. Since our full-time faculty and graduate-student instructors teach symmetrical loads (3/3 and 1/1), we accommodate the seasonal variation in number of sections primarily by adjusting the number of sections taught by part-time faculty. We try to manage the teaching loads of our regular part-time faculty (generally assigning them more sections in the fall than in the spring) so that we can offer them some employment in both the Fall and spring semesters, but that is not always possible.While most of our part-time lecturers are dedicated and able teachers, a heavy reliance on adjunct academic labor is not in the best interests of the program or the students it serves. It would be preferable for more of the Writing Program’s courses to be staffed by full-time lecturers or graduate-student instructors. This year, CAS responded to the Writing Program’s reliance on part-time lecturers by consolidating a number of part-time lecturer positions into an additional full-time line, effective July 1, 2012. This consolidation was made in response to an application for two consolidations submitted by the Writing Program in response to a CAS request for consolidation proposals. We hope that additional consolidations will be forthcoming, and we have submitted an application for two additional consolidations, effective July 1, 2013.II.F. CAS Departmental FacultyIn AY 2011-2012, the following departmental faculty members taught WR or WR-equivalent courses:Fall 2011: Adrian Whitty (with Binyomin Abrams)Assoc ProfChemistryCH 111Heather BarrettGradEnglishEN 120Amy Bennett-ZendzianGradEnglishEN 120Emily GruberGradEnglishEN 220Claire KervinGrad EnglishEN 120Laura KorobkinAssoc ProfEnglishEN 220Mary KuhnGradEnglishEN 220Cathal NolanAssoc ProfHistoryHI 150Magda OstasAsst ProfEnglishEN 220Anita PattersonAssoc ProfEnglishEN 220Carrie PrestonAsst ProfEnglishEN 220Peter SchwartzAssoc ProfMLCLWR 150Kevin Van AnglenSenior LecturerEnglishEN 220Spring 2012: Linda Doerrer (with Binyomin Abrams)Asst ProfChemistryCH 112Theodora GossLecturerWriting ProgramEN 220Michael HoganGradEnglishEN 220William HowellAsst Prof EnglishEN 220Mary KuhnGradEnglishEN 220Magda OstasAsst Prof EnglishEN 220Michael PrinceAssoc ProfEnglishEN 220Joseph RezekAsst ProfEnglishEN 220Charles RzepkaProfessorEnglishEN 220Abigail GillmanAssoc Prof MLCLLH 250Patricia StuelkeGradAMNESAM 250Kevin Van AnglenSenior LecturerEnglishEN 220James WinnProfessorEnglishEN 220II.G. Writing BoardThe Writing Board is a committee of CAS faculty that advises the Writing Program on matters of curriculum and policy. In AY 2011-2012, the board had the following members:Joseph Bizup (chair), Writing ProgramJohn Caradonna, ChemistryArianne Chernock, HistoryAlice Cronin-Golomb, PsychologySteven W. Jarvi, Associate Dean, Student Academic LifeMagdalena Ostas, EnglishPeter Schwartz, Modern Languages & Comparative LiteratureThomas A. Underwood, Writing ProgramPeter Yeager, SociologyBoard members are selected by CAS in consultation with the Writing Program director and typically serve three-year terms.This year, the Board’s major project was to begin a study of the state of writing and writing instruction in the College. Following a motion at the October 19, 2011 CAS faculty meeting proposing changes to the Writing Program’s WR 100/150 sequence, the Dean of the College asked the Writing Board to survey the state of writing and writing instruction in the College and to lead a discussion of these topics at the April 25, 2012 CAS faculty meeting. This discussion is intended to be the first of three such discussions, each addressing general education in a specific area: writing in Spring 2012 to be followed by mathematics and foreign languages in later semesters.In Spring 2012, the Board visited 11 departments (for a total of 16 departments visited since Spring 2011), held an open meeting with Writing Program faculty, and drafted a faculty survey that will be distributed to the faculty of the College in Fall 2012. At the April 25, 2012 meeting of the CAS faculty, the Board reported its initial findings and led a discussion of writing instruction among faculty present. The motion originally proposed at the October 19 meeting was reintroduced from the floor and was tabled following discussion.The Writing Board will also assume responsibility for adjudicating WR equivalencies, effective Fall 2012. Currently, WR equivalencies for non-WR courses are negotiated with the Writing Program director. Beginning in Fall 2012, the Writing Board will be responsible for overseeing WR-equivalent courses and for evaluating proposals from departments and programs seeking to offer WR-equivalent courses, with its decisions subject to review by the APC and the College. In this respect, the Writing Board would have a role relative to WR-equivalencies similar to the roles of the divisional curriculum committees relative to courses in the divisions. The Board, including the Writing Program director, unanimously endorsed this change.II.H. Professional Development / Faculty EngagementThe Writing Program is committed to the ongoing professional development of its teaching staff. In AY 2011-2012, the program provided its instructors with the following resources and faculty engagement opportunities:New Faculty Orientation: In August, the program offers a one-day orientation for new part-time and full-time lecturers.Beginning-of-Year Conversations: This year, we instituted the practice of having each full-time lecturer meet with one of the program’s directors for a half hour at the beginning of the fall semester. These meetings provide lecturers with an opportunity to take stock of their work in the program and to establish goals for the coming year. “First Friday” Meetings: The Writing Program has a mandatory faculty meeting on the first Friday of each semester. (The meetings take place on the second Friday of the semester if the first Friday precedes a long weekend.) These meetings are a time for the entire faculty to come together to discuss program priorities and projects and to share their thoughts and insights about teaching.Summer Barbeque: Since the summer of 2009, the program has hosted a voluntary summer faculty meeting in July, previewing program initiatives for the coming year. The meeting is followed by a barbeque. The 2011 barbeque was held on July 19, 2012. Each year, around twenty-five people have attended the event.Colloquium Series: In past years, the Writing Program has sponsored a colloquium series open to all Writing Program and CAS faculty. The program traditionally hosted six colloquia each semester, delivered by the Writing Program directors and Writing Program veteran faculty members. Graduate writing fellows in their second year of teaching were required to attend four colloquia to fulfill their WR 699 supervision requirement. This year, in response to spotty attendance at the colloquia, changes in the program’s procedures for supervising graduate students, and competition from other professional development opportunities such as the faculty seminars, the colloquium series was suspended.ESL Training: Instructors teaching ESL courses (WR 097, WR 098, WR100 ESL) receive special training and supervision from the director of ESL. In addition, we have developed a new two-credit course, WR 598, that will prepare writing tutors to work with ESL students. This course, piloted in AY 2010-2011, is described in detail below.Syllabus Review: The directors and curriculum coordinators review the syllabi of all Writing Program faculty each year. Faculty are invited to discuss their syllabi with the coordinators. In addition to helping to ensure that all WR courses prioritize the learning objectives prescribed by the program, this practice has also led to fruitful discussions between faculty and the administration about best practices in our courses.Formal Observations: The directors and course coordinators typically observe the teaching of all part-time lecturers and full-time lecturers up for renewal each year. While these observations are conducted in conjunction with reappointment reviews, they also serve as mentoring opportunities.Peer-to-Peer Observations: The Writing Program encourages its faculty to observe one another’s teaching. To encourage such exchanges, the program will provide $15 to allow any pair of instructors who observe one another’s classes to allow them go out for coffee to discuss the observations. In AY 2011-2012, 22 faculty participated in this program. These peer-to-peer evaluations are not part of the review and reappointment process.Archive of Teaching Resources (WPNet): The Writing Program maintains an online archive of sample syllabi, assignments, and other teaching resources accessible to all instructors. The archive contains hundreds of resources, organized according to how they fit into the curriculum and which learning objectives they support. The curriculum coordinators and the curriculum committee continually collect materials to add to the archive. In the spring of 2012, for example, nearly 100 pages worth of resources on the teaching of grammar were collected for WPNet.Program Blackboard Site: The Writing Program maintains a Blackboard site through which it makes available materials to support Writing Program faculty’s teaching.Faculty Seminars: In AY 2010-2011, the Writing Program initiated a faculty seminar series intended to complement its other professional development opportunities. The purpose of these seminars is not to provide practical guidance or training about teaching but to provide Writing Program faculty with opportunities to explore scholarship and research on topics related to writing studies and writing pedagogy. Each seminar meets four times and requires significant reading. Full-time lecturers who attend all four sessions of a seminar receive a $200 research stipend. This seminar series has been an unqualified success. All seminars have been enthusiastically received, and a large number of participants noted that the seminars prompted them to read further in the scholarship and to examine their teaching practices from the new perspectives this scholarship afforded. In AY 2011-2012, the program offered the following faculty seminars:Twenty Classic Articles in Composition Studies (Fall 2011, Spring 2012): This seminar, facilitated by Joseph Bizup in the fall and, with modest changes to the reading, by Chris Walsh in the spring, was inspired by the suggestion of a Writing Program faculty member that the program ought to assemble a list of twenty classic articles in composition studies that all Writing Program faculty members should read. Fourteen participants attended this seminar in the fall, and ten in the rmation Literacy (Fall 2011): This seminar, facilitated by Thomas Casserly, Head of Reference and Instructional Services for Mugar Memorial Library, surveyed recent scholarship on information literacy. The seminar was attended by a combination of Writing Program faculty and library personnel. Twenty-eight participants—sixteen from the Writing Program and twelve from Mugar Library and CGS Division of Rhetoric—completed all sessions of this seminar.Grammar and Style (Spring 2012, two sections): This seminar, facilitated by Joseph Bizup, was offered in two sections to accommodate demand. The seminar surveyed scholarship on grammar, usage, and style (and the teaching of these subjects), beginning with early challenges to the traditional view that formal instruction in grammar is a prerequisite for writing well to current efforts to (re)establish grammar and style as priorities in composition studies and composition pedagogy. Twenty participants attended this seminar, sixteen of whom completed all four sessions.Reading (Spring 2012): This seminar, facilitate by Prof Matthew Parfitt, chair of the Rhetoric Division of the College of General Studies, surveyed the scholarship on reading. Four participants attended all sessions of the seminar.II.I. Program GovernanceThe Writing Program is committed to involving its faculty in program governance through its committee structure (see Appendix E for membership). The program has four standing committees open to all Writing Program faculty: the Curriculum Committee, Faculty Issues Committee, WR Editorial Board, and Graduate Writing Fellows Selection Committee.Curriculum Committee: Responsible for advising the program's directors on curricular issues. Co-chaired in AY 2011-2012 by Christina Michaud and Gwen Kordonowy. This year, the Curriculum Committee concentrated mainly on sharing teaching resources among faculty members in the Writing Program. Committee members discussed the existing faculty intranet, explored new ways to organize the resource to make it more useful for instructors, and solicited additional examples of model assignments, activities, syllabi, etc. from faculty. The committee plans to continue working on this useful body of resources into the next academic year, surveying faculty in Fall 2012 to elicit feedback on the new organization.?The committee also worked closely with the Information Literacy Working Group, the Little Red Schoolhouse Working Group, and the Creative Writing Working Group to expand the resources available to faculty in those areas.Faculty Issues Committee: Responsible for advising the program's directors on such issues as professional development, service obligations, and review and reappointment procedures. Co-chaired in AY 2011-2012 by Carrie Bennett and Anthony Wallace. In response to a request from the director, this committee drafted a faculty expectations document outlining expectations in the areas of teaching, service, and professional development for full-time faculty. After CAS reviewed the document to ensure that it did not conflict with CAS policies, the Writing Program adopted it as official program policy. Also in response to a request from the director, this committee reviewed the rotation of teaching assignments for full-time faculty and recommended that all full-time faculty teach one MWF and one T/Th schedule per academic year, with a provision that lecturers may trade schedules with certain restrictions. In response to a request from some lecturers, the committee discussed the WP’s procedures for the qualitative assessment of student portfolios and recommended modest changes, all of which were adopted by the Writing Program. In the spring of 2012, the committee began discussing widespread concerns among WP lecturers over course evaluations. The committee’s specific concern is a perceived overemphasis on course evaluations in CAS’s assessment of lecturers’ performance. These discussions will continue next fall.WR Editorial Board: Responsible for the program’s online journal of student writing. Co-chaired by Ivan Eubanks and Marisa Milanese (curriculum co-coordinators). Graduate Writing Fellow Selection Committee: Responsible for reviewing applications for graduate writing fellowships, interviewing finalists, and recommending fellowship awards. Chaired by Chris Walsh.The program has two standing committees open only to senior lecturers and program directors:Lecturer Promotion Committee: Responsible for evaluating the cases of lecturers eligible for promotion to senior lecturer and recommending potential nominees for promotion to the program director. Chaired by Chris Walsh.Merit Review Committee: Responsible for evaluating all Writing Program faculty eligible for annual merit raises and making recommendations to the program director. Chaired by Chris Walsh.Three other ad hoc committees did significant work this year:Information Literacy Working Group: In AY 2011-2012, Ivan Eubanks and Michael Degener formed a working group to explore various approaches to information literacy education. An “IL” designation was developed for courses emphasizing information literacy. These endeavors were supplemented by a faculty seminar on Information Literacy offered by Tom Casserly of Mugar Library.Creative Writing Working Group: This group, chaired by lecturer William Giraldi, met several times across the Fall 2011/Spring 2012 semesters to discuss the question of what place, if any, should be accorded creative writing in the composition classroom. It soon became clear that they did not know enough about the literature on the use of creative writing—fiction, poetry, playwriting, memoir/personal essays—in this context. To remedy this gap in our knowledge, they undertook a project in which they assembled and summarized this literature and then assembled an introductory essay and annotated bibliography that gives an overview of their major findings. The composition literature contains very few practical guidelines for integrating creative writing into the composition classroom. The group was unable to find any substantive empirical data to support either the use or the avoidance of creative writing in composition. Even case studies are hard to come by. There is, however, a great deal of discussion about the place of creative writers in the university. While virtually no one can report anything more than anecdotal results, good or bad, from the use of creative writing in the composition classroom, it seems that practically everyone—scholars, critics, specialists in composition, and occasionally even creative writers themselves—has something to say about whether creative writing belongs among scholarly or compositional work. The group presented this data to the Writing Program as impetus for our instructors to explore the ways in which creative writing might be explored/implemented in their WR100 and WR150 sections.The Time-Use Study, organized by senior lecturer Samantha Myers, was a semester-long study involving ten full-time lecturers who reported on their weekly program-related activities. The goal of the study was to learn more about how much time lecturers spend on various teaching obligations. The regularity of lecturers’ reporting varied, and so the data collected is more suggestive than definitive. Nevertheless, the study revealed important information about how lecturers use their time and prioritize their responsibilities. Two findings are of note: (1) Lecturers completing the survey spent 39 hours per week, on average, on their Writing Program duties. Our belief is that many lecturers spend more than this amount of time on their Writing Program duties, but the study indicates that it is possible, in principle, for lecturers to fulfill their duties in a forty-hour week. (2) Grading and commenting on student work is by far lecturers’ greatest time commitment, with the lecturers who completed the survey spending about ten hours a week on this task on average. Our belief is that a number of lecturers spend significantly more time than this average on their grading and commenting, leading them to work more than forty-hour weeks. The program will draw on this study to develop a survey it will administer to full-time faculty to allow the program to better understand the work being done by the program’s full-time faculty.The Little Red Schoolhouse (LRS) Working Group: This group, co-chaired by Sarah Campbell and James Pasto, explored ways of integrating the Little Red Schoolhouse Online, a pedagogical website being developed by the Professional Writing Program at the University of Virginia, into WR courses. The LRS Online site provides a broad range of interactive learning and reference tools for students and teachers of writing. Despite the untimely death of LRS’s leader, UVA Professor Gregory G. Colomb, last fall, the LRS developers continue to develop modules for the site. During AY 2011-12 our group has been working to adapt LRS modules, exercises, and planning materials so that they may be integrated into Writing Program courses. The group plans to present the results of its work to the Writing Program faculty in the fall of 2012. (See Appendix E for a list of group members.) III. Research and ScholarshipMany members of the Writing Program faculty are active writers, scholars, and researchers. In the 2011 calendar year, according to the faculty activity reports, the Writing Program’s full-time lecturers published 26 poems and short stories, 12 reviews, 30 academic articles, and 3 books. William Giraldi (Busy Monsters, Norton) and Theodora Goss (The Thorn and the Blossom, Quirk Books) published critically acclaimed novels.?William Marx continues his work as editor of . Ivan Eubanks became the editor of the Pushkin Review, and Diane Greco Josefowicz was appointed the science and technology editor for The Victorian Web. Carrie Bennett won a Massachusetts Cultural Council Fellowship (one of only seven recipients in a competition with over 300 applicants), and Anthony Wallace the Pushcart Prize for his short story “The Old Priest.” ESL Director Maria Zlateva gave lectures as a visiting scholar at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Writing Program Director Joseph Bizup served as an editor of the 13th edition of The Norton Reader.Part-time lecturers and graduate students do not complete these reports, and hence we have no comprehensive information regarding their publications.IV. Undergraduate EducationEach BU school and college is responsible for establishing the writing requirements for its students. Currently, all of BU’s four-year schools and colleges, with the exception of CFA and KHC, require students to complete a two-semester writing requirement. The standard way for students to satisfy these requirements is through WR 100 and WR 150. CFA students have a one-semester writing requirement. Students who complete the KHC curriculum are deemed to have fulfilled their writing requirements.IV.A. WR 100 and WR 150WR 100 and WR 150 are a sequence of topic-based writing seminars that are the standard way for undergraduates in BU’s four-year schools and colleges to satisfy their writing requirements. Each year, we revise the guidelines for WR 100 and WR 150 in light of the previous year’s experience. For AY 2011-2012, streamlined the guidelines to give instructors more freedom to tailor their courses to their topics and teaching styles. At the same time, we made more explicit the elements that should be common across all WR 100 and WR 150 sections. (Consult the Writing Program’s curricular documents for detailed descriptions of these courses.)Although they vary in topic, all sections of WR 100 and WR 150 have certain goals in common. In WR 100, students develop their abilities to:craft substantive, motivated, balanced academic argumentswrite clear, correct, coherent proseread with understanding and engagementplan, draft, and revise efficiently and effectivelyevaluate and improve your own reading and writing processesrespond productively to the writing of othersexpress themselves verbally and converse thoughtfully about complex ideas.In WR 150, students continue developing these abilities while working intensively on prose style and learning to conduct college-level research.We continue to endeavor to increase the number of WR 100 and WR 150 courses on topics related to Boston or Boston University. We view such courses as an opportunity to introduce students to the urban and intellectual communities they have joined by choosing to attend Boston University. In AY 2011-2012, we offered the following Boston-themed courses: Boston ConfucianismBoston in Film and LiteratureBoston: Forefront of Science and ArtBoston’s Museums and Art CollectionsConstructing BostonThe Hidden Lives of Things: Material Culture in Nineteenth-Century New EnglandPublic Gardens and Urban Wilds: Boston's Natural HistoryRace and BostonScience in BostonA Social History of Boston’s North EndThe Theater NowThe Theater Now (WR 100 and WR 150): The last of these courses, The Theater Now, deserves special notice. These seminars invite students to write about current, Boston-area theatrical productions. Activities and events should cause students to interact in an academically substantive way with faculty and with one another while establishing enriching points of contact within the University and the greater Boston area. The courses were taught for the first time in AY 2009-2010 and were a tremendous success. Building on that success, senior lecturers William Marx and Anthony Wallace received a $20,000 grant from CAS to add additional sections and to integrate these courses with CAS's First Year Experience initiatives. In AY 2011-2012 we offered nine sections of The Theater Now in which five Writing Program instructors collaborated on selecting plays and films, coordinating large-group events, writing syllabi and assignment sheets, and conducting project assessment. Marx and Wallace also designed a website that will showcase Theater Now and other Boston-related courses and events both within the Writing Program and throughout CAS ( ). This project will continue in AY 2012-2013, with an emphasis on developing other “Now” courses in response to the Provost’s initiative of “Supporting the Arts at BU.”IV.B. WR 097, WR 098, WR 100 ESL (ESL Courses)Each year, the ESL team reviews and updates the guidelines for all ESL courses based on the previous year’s experience. The review showed that the new WR 098/WR 100 ESL sequence, designed and piloted last year, has been implemented successfully. This new version of WR 098, a topic-based seminar focused on the global university, has been very positively received by students, who describe it as laying the foundation for their college writing experience. Taught by instructors with background in language acquisition and ESL writing, WR 100 ESL is a version of WR 100 designed specifically for ESL students. The course provides continuing language support and facilitates students’ transition to WR 150. We offered four sections of WR 100 ESL in the fall of 2011 and twelve sections in the spring of 2012. To last year’s pilot offerings (Boston: Forefront of Science and Art; Political, Social, and Biological Perspectives on Gender Today; Conformity and Rebellion in Literature) we added a range of themes: Boston JazzThe American Coming-of-Age NovelDebating Ethics and JusticeLost in TranslationModern American PoetryParadox of the Hero/Heroine in East Asian Cinema and FictionShort FictionPoetry InternationalStudent response to these courses has been enthusiastic, and we are planning to expand the thematic variety further. The immediate goal is to enlist more general faculty by offering ESL training and ongoing support for the instruction of multilingual writers.Both program-wide assessments (Summer 2011 and Spring 2012) included a significant percentage of ESL students’ portfolios. These assessments indicated that the performance of ESL students in WR 100 and WR 150 (defined in this context as students who were required to submit English-language proficiency test scores for admission to Boston University) closely approached that of these courses’ general populations. In light of the changing demographics of the incoming international student population, the ESL director is considering some adjustments to the entry-level WR 097 course. The goal of these adjustments would be to boost the academic acculturation and language scaffolding components and to ensure closer monitoring of the students’ ongoing use of the Writing Center resources (see section IV.E).IV.C. Basic Writing CoursesIn AY 2009-2010, we temporarily retired WR 099, the program’s basic writing course. The reasons for this action are detailed in the program’s annual report for AY 2008-2009. We have continued to provide additional support to students who need it through the Writing Center through required intensive tutoring. In the program’s annual report for AY 2010-2011, we outlined a plan to develop a “stretch” basic-writing sequence in which students would complete roughly the same assignments as students in WR 100, but over two semesters rather than one. This idea remains on the table.IV.D. WR-Equivalent CoursesThe following courses are considered WR-100 or WR-150 equivalent:CAS AH 150 = WR 150 (effective Spring 2008)CAS AM 250 = WR 150 (effective Spring 2008)CAS CH 111/112 sequence = WR 150 (effective Spring 2010)CAS EN 120 = WR 100 (effective Fall 2003)CAS EN 220 = WR 150 (effective Fall 2003)CAS HI 150 = CAS WR 150KHC (formerly UHC), any 4-credit KHC course and the 2-credit studio, ST111, taken in fall of the freshman year = WR 100KHC (formerly UHC), any 4-credit KHC course and the 2-credit studio, ST112, taken in spring of the freshman year = WR 150UNI ID 201 = WR 100 (effective Fall 2007)UNI ID 202 = WR 150 (effective Fall 2007)See section IV.F for a full discussion of our collaboration with the Chemistry Department.The writing requirement can also be satisfied through the Core Curriculum’s Humanities sequence (CAS CC 101/102, 201/202) and the College of General Studies’ rhetoric courses (CGS RH 101, CGS RH 102).Beginning in the fall of 2012, the Writing Board will be responsible for evaluating proposals for WR equivalencies, with its decisions subject to review by the APC and CAS.IV.E. Writing CenterThe Writing Program’s Writing Center provides individual writing tutorials to students enrolled in classes satisfying the writing requirement. The center is administered by David Shawn and Maria Gapotchenko, senior lecturers who each receive a one-course release for serving as coordinators. The coordinators hire, train, and mentor the tutoring staff, while Emily Goldstein, the Writing Program’s senior staff assistant, oversees the online scheduling of appointments and serves as the first point of contact for students with questions about the Writing Center. While the center’s clients are primarily students taking WR courses, the center is open to all CAS students and students taking CAS courses. This past year, 55% of our appointments served students whose native language is other than English: twenty-nine different languages were represented. Staffing: In AY 2011-2012, the center was staffed by twenty-seven tutors: thirteen undergraduates, who receive writing fellowships, and fourteen graduate students, who are paid hourly. Our tutors are an extraordinary group of students who represent a variety of colleges and schools, including CAS, GRS, COM, CFA, SED, and SAR. The disciplinary diversity of our tutoring staff aims to parallel the diversity of the undergraduate population the Writing Center serves. Usage and Efficiency: In AY 2011-2012, the efficiency of the Writing Center’s usage (the ratio of sessions delivered to sessions offered) rose significantly from the previous year: from 71% to 84%. The center was extremely busy throughout the academic year, with most weeks having more than 90% usage. The center conducted over 3,500 tutoring sessions, about a 5% reduction from the previous year. Tutoring hours for the center decreased slightly from 2010-2011 due to a number of factors: fewer undergraduate tutors were hired for the year, several undergraduate tutors had their tutoring hours reduced in the Spring 2012 semester in order that they attend WR 598, and some tutors (both grads and undergrads) did not return in the Spring 2012 semester. Nevertheless, the demand for tutoring was unprecedented in terms of our utilization of available hours. Because of the demand for tutoring, a demand driven in large part by the increasing number of international students attending BU, the Writing Center required a $15,000 subvention from CAS.Intensive Tutoring: The Writing Center conducted over 300 intensive tutoring (IT) sessions (included in the above total) for students who require help and instruction beyond what they receive in their writing courses. Students enrolled in intensive tutoring commit to working one-on-one with the same graduate-student tutor for a six-week period. The number of Intensive Tutoring appointments remained consistent from Fall 2010 to Fall 2011. However, the numbers from Spring 2011 to Spring 2012 clearly declined. This decline is due, in part, to the addition of several WR 100 ESL courses in the Spring 2012. Students in these courses, who might otherwise have been identified as needing intensive tutoring, received instruction from faculty specializing in ESL issues. We therefore view this decline as a positive development. Evaluations of intensive tutoring by students continue to indicate a high degree of satisfaction with this program. Tutoring ESL Students in Writing (WR 598): This course was successfully piloted in AY 2010-2011 and in AY 2011-2012 was offered as an official two-credit course. Taught by the program's ESL director Maria Zlateva, the course prepares undergraduate and graduate tutors to work effectively with ESL students. It informs tutors about the unique needs of bilingual and multilingual learners of English and introduces them to research-based principles for working with students of varying degrees of English proficiency. The version offered in Spring 2012 included an active observation component, through which tutors visited sections of WR 097 and WR 098 to gain a better sense of the ESL curriculum and the specific needs of students at those levels. Tutors were also required to produce portfolios documenting their work in the course. (For the WR 598 syllabus and selections from tutors’ WR 598 portfolios, see Appendix F.) Tutors were enthusiastic about the course in their evaluations of it. Beginning in AY 2012-2013, the course will be a mandatory requirement for all incoming Writing Center tutors. While taking it, undergraduate writing fellows will be permitted to reduce their tutoring hours by one and a half hours per week while receiving the same compensation. For undergraduates, taking WR 598 is a key prerequisite to being promoted to Senior Writing Fellow. Graduate tutors, upon completing the course, will be paid at a higher hourly rate in subsequent semesters; will be expected to work with ESL students taking WR 098 (or, in some cases, WR 097); and may be asked to work as Intensive Tutors for ESL students. The course will continue to be taught by Maria Zlateva. Tutoring @ Mugar: In AY 2011-2012, the Writing Center’s satellite office held almost 375 writing tutorials in Mugar Library, a significant increase over the previous year. As we had anticipated, the demand for Tutoring @ Mugar increased, as did the efficiency of usage, from 64% to 79%. The increase was especially marked in the Spring 2012 semester when the bulk of WR students are enrolled in WR 150, our research-oriented writing seminars. To accommodate this demand, we added more tutors and allowed students convenient access to both writing tutors and reference librarians. We expect that demand for tutoring at Mugar will continue to increase as the service becomes better known. We also expect that demand will increase when the Writing Program relocates to 100 Bay State Road, removing it from central campus. We regard the early success of this initiative as very encouraging, and Mugar Library is equally enthusiastic about our collaboration.IV.F. Writing in the DisciplinesThe Writing Program’s main responsibility is currently to offer freshman-level writing courses. However, the document that led to the Writing Program’s creation, the 1999 Proposal for a College Writing Program, calls for the “eventual extension” of the program into one that can support writing in all four years of the undergraduate curriculum. As articulated in our 2010 Strategic Plan, achieving this original vision is one of our chief long-term goals.Last year, the program’s director, working in collaboration with the Writing Board, began exploring options CAS might pursue to support writing in the disciplines. The premise guiding these explorations is that rather than imposing a top-down advanced writing requirement, CAS should identify ways of helping departments integrate writing into their courses in ways that are consistent with their own curricular goals. In Fall 2010, Joseph Bizup presented a document to the Council of Chairs and Directors outlining approaches to supporting writing in the disciplines that have been adopted by other institutions. In spring 2011, Bizup and one Writing Board member met with the leadership of three departments—International Relations, Philosophy, and Political Science—to discuss the state of student writing and how student writing could be supported. Bizup also met with the full faculty of Biology. The purpose of these exploratory conversations was less to inform departments about the Writing Program than to learn about their needs and perspectives.This year, in response to a request from the Dean of the College that the Writing Board survey the state of writing instruction in CAS, the Writing Board continued to canvas CAS departments. In AY 2011-2012, members of the Writing Board visited the following additional departments:AnthropologyBiochemistry & Molecular BiologyClassical StudiesEnglishHistoryHistory of Art & ArchitectureModern Languages and Comparative LiteratureNeurosciencePsychologyRomance Studies (Linguistics)SociologyWomen’s, Gender, and Sexuality StudiesDetailed accounts of these visits were distributed to the CAS faculty in advance of its April 25, 2012 meeting, in a document titled Writing Board Meetings with Departments: Spring 2011-Spring 2012.In AY 2011-2012, the Writing Program continued to work closely with the History and Chemistry departments.Writing Initiative in History: The Writing Program committed to work with History to develop a new introductory history course under the auspices of a RULE grant from the Provost. Work on this course began in the summer of 2010 and will continue in AY 2011-2012. The Writing Program is represented by Thomas Underwood in this effort.Writing Initiative in Chemistry / BU Chemical Writing Program: Over the summer of 2009, we began working with the Chemistry Department to develop a WR 150-equivalency for introductory chemistry. The outcome of this work was the granting of WR 150-equivalent status to CH 111/112 (Intensive General and Quantitative Analytical Chemistry) on a three-year pilot basis. The resulting BU Chemical Writing Program, which provides discipline-specific writing tutoring to students in CH 111/112, has been an unequivocal success. In AY 2011-2012, the BU Chemical Writing Program continued to be led by Chemistry lecturer Binyomin Abrams. Writing Program lecturer Rebecca Kinraide continued to serve as a consultant to the program, with her term as consultant ending in spring 2012. The program continues to be successful and continues to evolve as Dr. Abrams refines the course’s assignment sequence and tutoring arrangements. (For additional details about this program, see the Writing Program’s annual report for AY 2010-2011.)IV.G. Writing Initiatives in Schools Other than CASIn past years, the program sponsored initiatives in Sargent College (SAR) and the School of Management (SMG), but these initiatives have been taken over entirely by the schools themselves, an outcome we view as positive. The Writing Program continues to sponsor writing initiatives in the School of Education (SED) and the Kilachand Honors College (KHC). This year, the Writing Program also provided support to the Biomedical Engineering department in the College of Engineering (ENG).SED Writing Initiative: The initiative in SED consists of a special two-credit course, WR 202, for SED students majoring in Early Education, who have a state-mandated requirement in Children’s Literature. In AY 2011-2012, the course was taught by Patricia Larash (fall and spring). SED also uses WR 100 and WR 150 to satisfy a state-mandated literature distribution requirement for students preparing to be teachers. Kilachand Honors College Studio: The Kilachand Honors College received its first entering class in the fall of 2010. The director of the Writing Program has served since the fall of 2009 as a member of the committee responsible for planning and overseeing the KHC curriculum. Beginning in AY 2010-2011, the Writing Program helped to staff the KHC studio courses. These two-credit courses complement the other elements of the KHC curriculum by providing first-year students with a structured, curricular setting in which they can develop their abilities in writing, communication, and mathematics, as well as their understanding of research methods and ethics. In AY 2011-2012, six sections of the studio were offered each semester. The writing-and-communication component of the course met weekly in the fall semester and weekly for half of the spring semester. This component of the studio was taught by full-time Writing Program faculty, each of whom was released from teaching one WR course. The Writing Program received six additional one-semester graduate writing fellowships to allow these releases. In AY 2011-2012, the studio course was coordinated by Writing Program senior lecturer Bradley Queen. The course was staffed by Writing Program lecturers Ivan Eubanks, Gwen Kordonowy, Sarah Madsen Hardy, Samantha Myers, James Pasto, and Bradley Queen. In AY 2011-2012, working in collaboration with KHC director Charles Dellheim, these lecturers revised the studio course so that it approached learning goals similar to those for WR 100/150 through assignments tailored to KHC.ENG Biomedical Engineering Senior Design Project: In Fall 2011, the Writing Program director was approached by Solomon Eisenberg, ENG Associate Dean for Undergraduate Programs and Professor and Chair of Biomedical Engineering, about the possibility of supporting writing in Biomedical Engineering and in ENG generally. As a consequence of this conversation, Joseph Bizup delivered a workshop on giving effective feedback on student writing to selected Biomedical Engineering faculty as well as two lecturers on scientific writing to Senior Design Project students in ENG BE 465. Bizup also arranged for a writing tutor, funded through ENG, to support these students.BE 465/466 is a yearlong capstone design experience required of all Biomedical Engineering seniors. During this year, students conceive, design, realize, and test their solutions to real scientific or technical problems in their field of study. ?In the BME department, this program is a large undertaking, with about a hundred students each year. Students do literature research and learn from various sources the relevant science and engineering concepts independently, without specific input from the course directors. The development of students’ communication and writing skills is a major component of the senior project experience. Students are required to undertake a series of graduated writing assignments that culminate in the development of a full project proposal at the end of the first semester and a detailed final report at the end of the second semester. These reports are often developed into publications for peer-reviewed science or engineering journals.This past year, with help from Joseph Bizup, the department developed an improved approach that has produced measurable gains in the quality of students’ writing and communication. At the beginning of the fall term Bizup met with the program "graders" (eight primary BME faculty members) and provided advice on how to provide useful feedback on students’ writing. Bizup also delivered two lectures on scientific writing to the design class. English department graduate student Lindsey Gilbert was funded through ENG to provide one-on-one tutoring to the Senior Design Project students. Biomedical Engineering reports that more than a third of the class availed themselves of this service, and student feedback on the tutoring was overwhelmingly positive. Because of these results, the Biomedical Engineering department plans to continue and enhance the initiative.IV.H. ESL PlacementDuring each summer orientation session, the Writing Program administers a placement test to all incoming international students required to submit proof of English-language proficiency along with their applications for admission. We also offer this test to any other student who requests an ESL placement decision. Based on their scores, students are placed into WR 097, WR 098, or WR 100. This placement procedure has proven to work precisely and reliably. In the summer of 2011, we administered the test to 577 students. In addition, we offered make-up tests to late registrants and transfer students at the beginning of each semester.IV.I. Assessment In AY 2009-2010, in conjunction with the transition to a portfolio-based WR 100/150 sequence, we developed a new portfolio-based curriculum assessment. The aim of this assessment is not to evaluate individual students or instructors but rather to provide information about the effectiveness of the WR 100/150 sequence as a whole. The assessment is based on the premise that the best way to understand student performance is to examine a large sample of actual student work. We collect portfolios from approximately 10% of the students who take WR 100 in the fall or WR 150 in the spring. We collect portfolios from approximately 25% of the students who to WR 100 in the spring or WR 150 in the fall. We also collect portfolios from approximately 25% of ESL students in WR 100 and 25% of ESL students in WR 150.In odd-numbered academic years (e.g., AY 2010-2011), we perform a large-scale quantitative assessment. Over the summer, approximately twenty Writing Program faculty work for one week to review and rate a sampling of WR 100 and WR 150 portfolios using a rubric reflecting WR 100 and WR 150 course outcomes. Faculty who participate in the assessment each receive compensation of $1000. In even-numbered academic years (e.g., AY 2011-2012), we undertake a more focused qualitative study. Every full-time lecturer is required to participate in this assessment by reviewing either fall or spring portfolios. In the qualitative review, teams of faculty read and report on a set of eight portfolios (groups read fall portfolios in the spring and spring portfolios the following fall). For additional details on the assessment procedure and an account of findings, see the WR 100/150 Curriculum Assessment Report.IV.J. WR: The Journal of the Arts & Sciences Writing ProgramThe third issue of the Writing Program’s online journal of student writing was published in August 2011. The journal, which is co-edited by the program’s two curriculum coordinators, serves three purposes. First, it allows us to share the best student writing to emerge from our courses. Second, it provides model student papers for use in teaching. In a given year, the journal will receive 300-500 submissions, from which it will publish eight to twelve papers, including the program’s prize-winning papers (see below). Third, the editorial process itself provides an opportunity to Writing Program faculty to talk with one another about what the program should value in student writing.IV.K. Awards and PrizesThe winners of the Annual Arts & Sciences Writing Program Prize Essay Contest will be determined in early July. Prize essays will be published in WR. The Writing Program also adjudicated the Alumni Association Writing Excellence Awards. Winners of these Awards for 2011-2012 are as follows:Award for Writing Excellence in the Humanities in Honor of Robert E. CharmCaitlin B. Rose, CAS ‘12CAS Concentration: EnglishFaculty Sponsor: Professor James Winn, English DepartmentPaper Title: “Eliza Haywood’s Characters: The Use of Characters in Love in Excess and Their Reflection on The Developing Novel and Other Themes of the 18th Century”Gregory Hudson Award for Writing Excellence in the HumanitiesMichael Pitter, CAS ‘12CAS Concentrations: EnglishFaculty Sponsor: Professor Christopher Martin, English DepartmentPaper Title: “Conflicts in Criticism”Michael A. Sassano III and Christopher M. Sassano Award for Writing Excellence in the Social SciencesPhilip S. Cook, CAS ‘12CAS Concentrations: ArchaeologyFaculty Sponsor: Professor Mary C. Beaudry, Archaeology DepartmentPaper Title: “An Evaluation of the Kabri Archaeological Project”Francis Bacon Award for Writing Excellence in the Natural SciencesLucy Flynn, CAS ‘12CAS Concentration: BiologyFaculty Sponsor: Professor Ulla Hansen, Biology DepartmentPaper Title: “LSF Upregulates Genes Required for Initiation of DNA Replication and Favors Mitosis”V. Graduate EducationThe Writing Program offers instruction in writing pedagogy to graduate students preparing to teach in the program and ongoing instruction to those continuing in the program.V.A. Training and SupervisionWe consider the work graduate students do in the Writing Program to be part of their academic training. Therefore, in addition to their teaching duties, both teaching fellows and graduate writing fellows have specific initial and ongoing professional development obligations. In the spring before their first semester of teaching, all incoming graduate-student instructors take Teaching Composition (WR 698), a two-credit seminar designed to prepare them for their fall teaching assignments. The following fall, they take Teaching College Writing (WR 699 A1), a two-credit practicum that guides them through their first semester of teaching in the CAS Writing Program. The program’s director and associate director alternate teaching these courses. In AY 2011-2012, they were taught by Joseph Bizup.The Writing Program is responsible for assigning WR 699 credit to the graduate students who teach in the program, and we regard these students as being supervised jointly by the Writing Program and their home programs and departments. The English Department customarily observes the English graduate students who teach in the Writing Program and offers reports on their teaching, including recommendations about WR 699 grades, to the Writing Program.V.B. Certificate in Teaching Writing At the suggestion of the dean of the College, we have developed a certificate to acknowledge the significant training and experience in the teaching of writing graduate students receive through the Writing Program. In the spring of 2011, the certificate was approved by the Academic Policy Committee, and at its March 3rd meeting, the CAS faculty approved the certificate by unanimous consent. The Certificate in Teaching Writing will be awarded to graduate students who do the following:complete WR 698 (preparatory seminar) and WR 699 (teaching practicum)teach for two semesters in the Writing Programcomplete one faculty seminar (see section II.H. Professional Development below)produce a capstone teaching portfolio documenting their development as teachersThis year, we awarded the certificate to the following graduate students:Cristine Hutchison-JonesLiam MeyerEliza WallaceVI. Community LifeFaculty Community: Fostering a rich community life among the Writing Program faculty is one of our top priorities. Our belief is that a strong sense of community will help to maintain faculty morale, facilitate recruitment and retention, and increase quality and consistency of instruction across our courses. We continue to have required faculty meetings at least once per semester, have created a number of standing and ad hoc committees, and have instituted an array of formal and informal opportunities for faculty to come together and discuss their teaching and intellectual work. Undergraduate Community: We recognize that the Writing Program plays a significant role in students’ undergraduate experience, especially in the first two years. Therefore, we have been working with Steven Jarvi, Associate Dean of Student Academic Life, to develop courses that contribute to CAS’s First Year Experience initiatives. We note especially the program’s collaboration with the Dean Jarvi to develop an Arts Now initiative modeled on our successful Theater Now courses and the program’s support for writers’ floors in the residence halls. Diane Greco Josefowicz, Jason Tandon, and Chris Walsh served as informal advisors for the Writers' Corridor in Shelton Hall (91 Bay State Road), a Residence Life learning community formed in 1984-1985 as a location where students interested in writing could share their ideas and learn from one another. (See the BU Today article as reference: .) Diane, Jason, and Chris met several times with administrators (Shelton Hall Area Director Jennifer Carter-Battaglino and Assistant Director of Residence Life Yvette V. Lancaster) and students (including Resident Advisor Caroline Jolstad) to devise ways to revitalize this community. They plan on continuing this work in the fall.VII. OutreachVII.A. Web-Based Outreach to the University CommunityThe Writing Program maintains a website, a database of courses, and a site through which students may book appointments in the Writing Center. It also maintains an internal website of resources for Writing Program faculty, the WPNet, described above. These resources are maintained by the program’s academic administrator Alyssa Hall with assistance from senior staff assistant Emily Goldstein.Writing Program Wesbite: The Writing Program’s current website launched in March 2010. The site now includes full explanations of the Writing Program’s curriculum written for a general audience, provides faculty contact information and office hours, and describes transfer credit procedures. It provides access to WR, our online journal of student writing, online scheduling for Writing Center appointments, and an interactive database of writing seminars.Scheduling for Writing Center: The Writing Center currently uses WCOnline to schedule appointments. We are being encouraged by the ERC to move to a different scheduling platform, TutorTrack, in the interest of providing consistent scheduling interfaces across our programs.Database of Writing Seminars: In AY 2009-2010, the Writing Program worked with IS&T to develop an online database of Writing Program courses, accessible through the student and faculty links. This database is now the primary vehicle through which students find information about the program’s course offerings.VII.B. Outreach to CommunityIn AY 2011-2012, as part of its continued efforts to support writing instruction at local public high schools, the Writing Program participated in the Boston Public School's Advanced Placement Initiative Vertical Teaming program. This initiative is a component of Success Boston, a collaboration among Boston Public Schools, the Boston Foundation, the Boston Private Industry Council and other nonprofits, and many Boston-area colleges and universities. During this year-long project, Writing Program faculty members Maria Milanese, Sarah Madsen Hardy, and Gwen Kordonowy took part in a series of workshops designed to encourage BPS high school teachers and local college faculty to collaborate in developing language arts curriculum to prepare high school students for college-level work. In the spring, BPS high school language arts teachers and WP faculty exchanged classroom visits. In April, the WP also hosted a colloquium at BU to foster conversation between local high school teachers and Writing Program faculty. Based on contacts made through the API Vertical Teaming project, the Writing Program is exploring further collaboration with the Mary Lyons School, a public pilot school near campus, and planning another colloquium with high school teachers in Fall 2012.VIII. FundraisingPrevious annual reports have detailed the tight budgetary constraints under which the Writing Program operates. We conducted no independent fundraising activities in AY 2011-2012. We hope to increase the attention we give to fundraising in future years.IX. Facilities and InfrastructureThe Writing Program will relocate to the new Student Services Center at 100 Bay State Road in August 2012.X. Multimedia InformationPlease visit bu.edu/writingprogram to find the latest information on the program, to navigate the program’s new searchable database of writing seminar topics, and to read past issues of WR, the Writing Program’s journal of undergraduate writing.BU Today published two stories on two program courses: Joelle Renstrom’s class on the Evolution of Science Fiction and David Larson’s Fear in Society: Political Philosophy through Monster Films.The public website for our cluster of Theater Now courses is available at . Looking to the FutureIn AY 2012-2013, the Writing Program will continue to pursue the vision of an integrated four-year program outlined in its 2010 Strategic Plan. To this end, the Writing Board, the Writing Program administration, and the Writing Program’s coordinators and committee chairs will work to develop a broad consensus about what, specifically, CAS and the Writing Program should do in the short and long terms to support writing beyond WR 150.Appendix A. Writing Seminar Topics, AY 2011-20121899A Social History of Boston's North EndAmerican Environmental HistoryAmerican Generations in the Twentieth CenturyAmerican HomesteadAmerican ManifestosAnti-Immigrant Sentiment in the United StatesApproaches to DeathArts Criticism: From the Old Media to the NewBeauty and the BodyBedside Manners: The Clinical Encounter in ContextBerets and Blue Smoke: Existentialism in Literature and FilmBob Dylan's LyricsBoston ConfucianismBoston in Film and LiteratureBoston Jazz (ESL Only)Boston: Forefront of Science and Art (ESL only)Boston's Museums and Art CollectionsBrave New Worlds: Utopias and Dystopias in Contemporary Speculative FictionCaptivity in American Literature and CultureCaptivity in American Literature and FilmCentral and East European CinemaChildren's LiteratureComedy and the Comic ImpulseConformity and Rebellion in Literature (ESL only)Constructing BostonConsumer Society and the American Family: A Sociological PerspectiveCrises Past and PresentCritical Issues in Women's Camera WorkDeath, Passion, and Patience at the Founding of RomeDebates in the History of MedicineDebating Ethics & Justice (ESL Only)Defending PoetryDocumentary Film: History, Theory, and FormDon Quixote and the Modern ImaginationEducation and WorkEnglish Grammar and Composition (ESL only)Entering EuropeEthics in Public HealthEvolution of Science FictionFamily RomancesFantasy at the Fin-de-SiecleFear in Society: Political Philosophy Through Horror FilmsFreedom of Conscience in Civil SocietyFrom the Grand Tour to the Auction HouseFrom Yeats to U2: Irish PoetryGlobalization: The Promise and The RealityHeritage and Landscape AestheticsHeroes, Odysseys, and QuestsHow to Make Americans: Eugenics in American Culture, 1895-1930Illness and Dying in Early English LiteratureImagining Other MindsImagining the Vietnam War: "The Big Muddy" in American CultureIndividual Conscience and Social PolicyIntroduction to College Reading and Writing in English (ESL only)Inventing the American IndividualistIrish LiteratureIt's Only a Game--Or Is It?Jack Kerouac and the Beat GenerationJames Joyce: Voicing ModernityKing Arthur: Metamorphosis of a HeroLiterary Metamorphoses: Reading the Literature of TransformationLiterature and Moral AmbiguityLiterature of Illness and HealingLiving PoetsLost in Translation (ESL Only)Love in the Modern NovelMagazine Fiction of the Fin de SiecleMagic RealismManuscripts Don't Burn: Fairy Tales, Grotesque, Science Fiction, and Satire in Russian LiteratureMasterpieces of Russian ProseMeasurement and MethodologyModern American Liberalism and its CriticsModern American Poetry (ESL Only)Modern and Contemporary American PoetryModern DramaModern Fiction and PoetryModern Literature and SocietyMusic and CultureNarratives in Motion: Two American Short Story CyclesOn the Social ContractOratory in AmericaParadox of the Hero/Heroine in East Asian Cinema and FictionParadox of the Hero/Heroine in East Asian Cinema and Fiction (ESL Only)Persuasive Speech in Ancient LiteraturePlaying Games: How Video Games Work and What They MeanPoetic SpacesPoetic Spaces: From The Heights of Macchu Picchu to the Depths of the InfernoPoetry International (ESL Only)Policing American Identity: Anti-Immigration Movements in U.S. HistoryPolitical, Social, and Biological Perspectives on Gender Today (ESL only)Postmodern Historical FictionPostwar AmericaPreludes to RevolutionPreludes to Revolution: Thinking about Scientific ChangePublic Gardens and Urban Wilds: Boston's Natural HistoryRace and BostonReading DisasterReading Illness in the English RenaissanceReadings in Dream TheoryReady Player One: How Video Games Work and What They MeanRevenge in LiteratureReviled Architecture: The Buildings We Love to HateRoad TripsRomanticism and American HistoryRussian Literary MasterpiecesRussian Literary Masterpieces: Mikhail BulgakovScience in BostonSex, Gender, and the Social SelfShakespeare and PerformanceShopping in American HistoryShort Fiction (ESL Only)Source and Sorcery: All About FoodSpace and Time: Common Sense and BeyondSpike Lee's AmericaStructures of LanguageSympathy for the DevilThe American Short Story Since 1945The American Short Story: Tradition and EvolutionThe Avant-GardeThe Bible as LiteratureThe City in Modern American DramaThe Colbert Report: American SatireThe Contemporary American Coming-of-Age NovelThe Essential Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.The Essential Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Rediscovery of an American HeroThe Ethical ImaginationThe Fiction of Tim O'Brien: Texts and ContextsThe First AmendmentThe Harlem RenaissanceThe Hidden Lives of Things: Material Culture in Nineteenth-Century New EnglandThe Immortal and the Sage: Self-cultivation in Classical ChinaThe Matter of King Arthur Then and NowThe MemoirThe Modern NovellaThe Morality of LoveThe Nature of ConsciousnessThe Poetry of Robert FrostThe Poetry of WarThe Post-War American Coming-of-Age Novel (ESL Only)The Religious Use of Psychoactive SubstancesThe Rhetoric of Freedom in AmericaThe Signs of Hard Times: Visual Culture in Depression AmericaThe Theater NowThe Tortured PoetThe WhaleTo Embody the Way: Early Chinese SpiritualityTopics in the History of Public HealthTransitional JusticeTutoring in ESLU.S. Presidents and American SecularismUtopias and Dystopias in Recent FictionVisions of Technology and SocietyWalt Whitman and American ModernismWriters on WritingWriting About Controversial ScienceAppendix B. WR 100/150 SequenceThis appendix three curriculum documents: requirements for WR 100, requirements for WR 150, and the WR 100/150 “timeline,” with provides guidance on what instructors should teach at different points in the two semesters.Outline of Requirements for WR 100Version: 2011-07-01Contents:IntroductionCore Skills and Points of KnowledgeCourse RequirementsAdditional Requirements for InstructorsEvaluationProgram RequirementsI. IntroductionThese requirements for all WR100 sections have been updated from 2010-2011 in consultation with the Curriculum Committee and the Writing Program’s leadership team (curriculum coordinators, Writing Center coordinators, committee chairs). While all sections of WR 100 must bear a certain resemblance to one another, this document does not aim to enforce a regimented homogeneity. Rather, it establishes a framework of requirements designed to promote and maintain an appropriate consistency across WR 100 sections while also accommodating a range of teaching styles and seminar topics. For advice, suggestions, and sample teaching materials (syllabi, class activities, assignments, etc.), see the Teaching Resources section of the WPNet. If you would like to try out an idea that would require you to depart from these requirements, please discuss your plans with one of the curriculum coordinators or directors. We are generally receptive to experiments, but we also need to know about and approve proposed deviations from the standard curriculum.Section II describes the core skills, experiences, and points of knowledge every student should have or acquire in WR 100. Section III outlines the concrete work required of students in the course. These requirements are framed broadly, so that you may instantiate them as appropriate to your individual section or sections. In explaining the course requirements, this section draws on a nomenclature (BEAM/BEAT) that characterizes sources in terms of how writers use them in texts. For additional information about this nomenclature and its relationship to the conventional way of classifying sources (primary, secondary, tertiary), consult the WPNet.Section IV sets some basic expectations for syllabi, feedback on students’ work, and the format of assignment sheets. Section V presents your options for the weighting of various elements of the course in the calculation of final grades. Section VI explains the program’s procedures for syllabus review and for the curriculum assessment.In each of these sections, requirements are presented in the main text, while recommendations, suggestions, and explanations are presented as endnotes [deleted from annual report].II. Core Skills and Points of KnowledgeThis section identifies a core set of specific skills and points of knowledge that students should bring with them from WR 100 to WR 150. It does not replace the comprehensive list of course goals that must be included in every WR 100 syllabus (see template). That list is comprehensive and presented in language crafted to be accessible to students and other members of the BU community. This section may be understood as a gloss on the first three goals in that list:craft substantive, motivated, balanced academic argumentswrite clear, correct, coherent proseread with understanding and engagementArgumentation: Students should understand that the purpose of most academic arguments is not to “win” but to further the “conversation.” In less metaphoric language, they should understand that the goal of most academic writing is to contribute to the collective understanding of some group of interested if perhaps skeptical readers. Students should know the elements of an argument: claim, reasons, and evidence, acknowledgment and response, and warrants. They should be able to identify these elements and to deploy them to rhetorical effect in their own papers.Reading: Students should receive significant practice reading, especially reading pieces that make sustained arguments. Students should understand the difference between reading for understanding and reading for engagement, and they should receive significant practice reading in both of these modes. Both of these sorts of reading can be facilitated by analysis, which students should understand and practice. In particular, students should understand the difference between summary and analysis.Genre: Students should understand that texts have forms that have evolved or have been designed to facilitate certain reading practices. By the end of WR 100, when students encounter a text, they should habitually ask themselves how the text is structured and what reading practices that structure encourages and supports.Problems: In WR 100, students should learn to think in terms of problems and questions rather than in terms of topics. In WR 100, students should learn to develop interesting and viable writing projects. They should understand that the problems and questions they pose to themselves dictate the projects they take on and, ultimately, the shape of the arguments they write. Introductions: Students should know the pattern of the standard academic introduction: common ground or background, problem statement or question, claim or promise of resolution. Students should also receive significant practice writing introductions that adhere to this pattern.Summary: In WR 100, students should develop their abilities to summarize things they have read accurately and at varying lengths. In addition to writing stand-alone summaries, students should also learn to incorporate summary into their longer papers.Writing with Sources: From early on in WR 100, students should be working with multiple sources, and at least one assignment should require students to select the sources they use in their papers from a larger group of sources (see the requirements for paper 3 below). You should familiarize your students with the difference between primary and secondary sources. You are also encouraged to use BEAM/BEAT (background source, exhibit/exhibit source, argument source, method source/theory source) to teach and describe the different ways in which sources can be used.Grammar and Style: The Writing Program does not currently mandate that any particular grammatical or stylistic terms or concepts be taught to all students in WR 100. The program also recommends that instructors refrain from emphasizing matters of sentence-level style until the second half of WR 100. For an explanation of this recommendation, see the document What to Teach When, a.k.a. the timeline, forthcoming on the mon Vocabulary: To promote consistency across sections and to facilitate students’ transition from WR 100 to WR 150, be sure that your students are familiar with the common terms below. You are encouraged but not required to use and teach the terms in parentheses. Common TermsSynonyms or Near SynonymsArgument terms:claimthesis, point, main ideareasons and evidencesupport, groundsacknowledgment and responserebuttals(warrant)Introductions:common groundbackgroundproblem statementquestion, motiveclaim(see above)(Analysis)(Genre)(Project)SummarySources—conventional termsprimarysecondarySources—functional terms(Background source)(Exhibit / Exhibit source)(Argument source)(Method source / Theory source)III. Course RequirementsSelf-Assessment: Within the first two weeks of the semester, all students must submit written self-assessments in which they take stock of their abilities as readers and writers and set some learning goals for themselves. This assignment is an occasion to introduce students to the kind of reflective yet public writing they will do in their final portfolios (see below) and to invite them to take responsibility for their own educations. The assignment is also intended to provide you with information about your students’ abilities and goals and to help to establish a baseline for the Writing Program’s curricular assessment. You have three options for this assignment:Option 1: Self-assessment essay/letter: Students write essays or letters in which they take stock of their abilities as readers and writers and establish some learning goals for themselves.Option 2: Self-assessment essay/letter & diagnostic essay: Students write brief essays (possibly in-class) engaging with a short passage/exhibit relevant to the course. Students then write self-assessment essays/letters as above, but also commenting on their diagnostic essays or drawing on them as evidence.Option 3: Self-assessment essay/letter & sample paper: Students submit a sample paper from a previous high school or college course. Students then write self-assessment essays/letters as above, but also commenting on their sample papers or drawing on them as evidence. If possible, students should submit source-based academic arguments as sample papers. Some students, however, may not have such papers available and will therefore have to submit papers in other genres.Three Major Papers: In WR 100, students must complete three polished papers totaling 5,000-6,500 words (15-20 pages). The final version of each paper should be a polished piece of academic prose.Paper 1: Academic argument in which the student analyzes or interprets a single exhibit in order to engage another argument or position. This other argument or position may be from a published source (i.e. argument source), but it may also be something generated by the class itself (e.g., a summary of a position articulated during a class discussion, a position offered by the teacher in the assignment sheet, a view of a peer from a discussion board or blog posting). To execute this assignment successfully, students must (1) summarize and present the positions to which they are responding, (2) advance positions or claims of their own, (3) support those positions or claims through the analysis or interpretation of particular exhibits.The final version of this first paper should be submitted for a grade no later than the end of the fourth week of the semester.Paper 2: For the second paper you have two options:Option 1: Source-based academic argument: Academic argument using at least two sources, at least one of which is an exhibit and at least one of which is an argument source. If appropriate, you may require students to work with background/fact or method/theory sources as well.Option 2: Paper in alternative genre: A paper in a genre other than the conventional sourced-based academic argument (e.g., imaginative dialog, personal essay, ethnography, memoir, review). If you choose this option, your assignment should be structured and framed so that it contributes to the course’s overarching goal of teaching students to write source-based academic arguments. If you choose this option, please notify the Writing Program of your choice by emailing your assignment sheet to wpadmin@bu.edu.Paper 3: Academic argument using at least three sources, at least one of which is an exhibit and at least one of which is an argument source. If appropriate, you may require students to work with background/fact or method/theory sources as well. To begin to prepare students for WR 150, this assignment should also require students to choose the sources they will use in their paper from a larger array of sources. You should provide at least some of these sources. You may also require or encourage students to do a limited amount of additional research. We recommend that you assign an annotated bibliography as an exercise in conjunction with this assignment.Exercises (In-Class or Take-Home): Exercises are short, low-stakes assignments or activities. Students are expected to complete exercises as assigned. As a teacher, you can use exercises for a range of purposes:to teach or reinforce specific reading, writing, and speaking skillsto structure students’ engagement with the course materialsto frame or prime class discussionsto provide opportunities for metacognitive or reflective workto help students plan their papers (e.g., précis, outlines, project plans, annotated bibliographies)to facilitate drafting, revision, and workshopping.This list is not exhaustive. Exercises need not receive formal grades. If you do grade exercises, they should cumulatively count for no more than 10% of the course grade.Conferences: Students should be required to attend one formal, individual conference with their instructors.Participation and Attendance: As described in syllabus template.Optional Library Orientation: We ask you to consider conducting a library orientation in WR 100. The library is crucial to the intellectual culture of the university, and introducing it to students helps integrate them into that culture. The orientation should familiarize students with the library’s physical layout and introduce them to the various ways in which information is stored, organized, and accessed. For additional information, consult the handout on the WPNet.Final Portfolio: Each student must submit a final portfolio demonstrating his or her progress toward the course goals. The portfolio must contain (1) an introduction in which the student assesses his or her progress toward the course goals and (2) selected artifacts (e.g., final papers, drafts, exercises, notes) documenting the assertions in the introduction. You are responsible for developing your own portfolio assignment. For examples, see the WPNet.You may have your students submit their portfolios in paper form, as pdf documents, as Word documents, or in Digication.A sample of students’ final portfolios will be collected by the Writing Program for assessment at the end of the semester. Portfolios collected for the assessment must contain:An introduction assessing the student’s progress toward the course goalsThe student’s self-assessment from the beginning of the semesterThe final version of each major paperAt least one draft of the third major paperIf you do not require all of your students to include these materials in their final portfolios, you will be responsible for adding them to the portfolios selected for assessment.IV. Additional Expectations for Instructors: Syllabus: You should provide students with a detailed syllabus that describes the course goals, outlines course policies and grading practices, and identifies due dates for readings and major assignments. See the syllabus template for additional details about this requirement.Assignment Sheets: You should give students a detailed assignment sheet for each major paper. These assignment sheets should have the following sections:Goals or Purpose: What specifically are students supposed to learn or learn to do as they write this paper? Use this section to frame the assignment in terms of the course goals.Prompt, Tasks, or Questions: What specifically are students supposed to do? This section should be relatively succinct. Save commentary for the Notes/Comments section.Formatting and Submission Instructions: How long should the paper be? What documentation format should students use? What are the due dates for drafts and for the finished version? How should the paper be submitted (hardcopy, Blackboard dropbox, Digication)? Etc.Notes or Comments (Optional): Use this section to offer additional suggestions, explications, or elaborations.Feedback: You should provide timely, formative feedback on at least one draft of each major paper. You are obligated to provide your students with timely, written, summative feedback and grades on the final version of each of the three major papers. . You should not assign binding grades to drafts. You may, if you choose, offer provisional grades (i.e., what the draft would receive if submitted in its current state as a finished paper) or use modest credit or penalties to encourage the timely submission of drafts.Drafting and the Writing Process: You must explicitly address the drafting and the writing process in your classes. Students must be given opportunities in class to share their work in progress and to receive feedback from other students in the class. Students must be taught to give productive feedback and to make productive use of the feedback they receive.V. Evaluation:Weighting of Coursework in Final Grades:Major Papers (distributed across three papers):70%Portfolio (introduction, framing, selection, organization, etc.):10%Discretionary:20%The discretionary 20% can be distributed as you choose. Options include:grading the self-assessment (up to 5%)grading participation (up to 5%)grading exercises (up to 10% total)increasing the weights of the major papers (up to 90% total)increasing the weight of the portfolio (up to 15% total).Grading Portfolios: When grading the portfolio, you should not re-grade work that has already been graded. The 10% allocated to the portfolio is for those elements unique to the portfolio: the introduction, any additional framing (e.g., annotations, captions), the selection and arrangement of artifacts, the organization of the portfolio, etc. The weight you assign to the final portfolio should be commensurate with the portfolio’s prominence in your classes. For most sections, the portfolio should count for 10% of the final grade. If the portfolio plays an especially significant role in your courses, you may increase the weight of the assignment to 15%.Attendance and Participation: Attendance should be accounted for as outlined in the syllabus template. This template contains a new attendance policy created by the Curriculum Committee. Participation may be accounted for in one of two ways: as part of the final course grade (up to 5%) or as an after-the-fact adjustment to the final grade (+/- one third of a letter grade). These methods are mutually exclusive. If you opt to assign participation an explicit weight may not also make an after-the-fact adjustment. Likewise, if you opt to make an after-the-fact adjustment you may not also assign participation an explicit weight.VI. Program Requirements:Syllabus Review: All WR 100 and WR 150 syllabi will be reviewed by the Writing Program to ensure that they have implemented these requirements in a reasonable fashion. You should submit your syllabus for Fall 2011 to the Writing Program by Sunday, August 14.Curriculum Assessment: At the end of the semester, the Writing Program will solicit selected students’ final portfolios as part of its curriculum assessment. Instructors will receive a list of names from the program and will be expected to submit portfolios to the Writing Program as instructed.Outline of Requirements for WR 150Contents:IntroductionCore Skills and Points of KnowledgeCourse RequirementsAdditional Requirements for InstructorsEvaluationProgram RequirementsI. IntroductionThis document parallels the Outline of Requirements for WR 100 for AY 2011-2012. Like that document, it establishes a framework of requirements designed to promote and maintain an appropriate consistency across WR 150 sections while also accommodating a range of teaching styles and seminar topics. For advice, suggestions, and sample teaching materials (syllabi, class activities, assignments, etc.), see the Teaching Resources section of the WPNet. If you would like to try out an idea that would require you to depart from these requirements, please discuss your plans with one of the curriculum coordinators or directors. We are generally receptive to experiments, but we also need to know about and approve proposed deviations from the standard curriculum.Section II describes the core skills, experiences, and points of knowledge every student should have or acquire in WR 150. Section III outlines the concrete work required of students in the course. These requirements are framed broadly, so that you may instantiate them as appropriate to your individual section or sections. In explaining the course requirements, this section draws on a nomenclature (BEAM/BEAT) that characterizes sources in terms of how writers use them in texts. For additional information about this nomenclature and its relationship to the conventional way of classifying sources (primary, secondary, tertiary), consult the WPNet.Section IV sets some basic expectations for syllabi, feedback on students’ work, and the format of assignment sheets. Section V presents your options for the weighting of various elements of the course in the calculation of final grades.Section VI explains the program’s procedures for syllabus review and for the curriculum assessment.In each of these sections, requirements are presented in the main text, while recommendations, suggestions, and explanations are presented as endnotes [deleted from annual report].II Core Skills and Points of KnowledgeWR 100 begins by focusing on “mid-level” concerns such as reading, argumentation, and organization and comes increasingly to emphasize “low-level” concerns such as sentence-level style and usage and “high-level” concerns such as information literacy. WR 150 should build on the skills and knowledge students develop in WR 100 (e.g., problem statements, summary, acknowledgement and response) while giving increased attention to both “low-level” and “high-level” concerns. In particular, WR 150 should build on what students learn in WR 100 while introducing them to college-level research and research-based writing.Likewise, while WR 100 aims, especially early in the semester, to help students develop and expand their repertoires of reading and writing skills, WR 150 aims, especially as the semester progresses, to give students opportunities for practicing choice and judgment. For additional information about WR 100 and the progression from WR 100 to WR 150, see the following documents, available on the WPNet: Outline of Requirements for WR 100 and WR 100/WR 150 Timeline.Problems, Reasons and Evidence, Acknowledgement and Response: While WR 150 builds on all aspects of WR 100, it is particularly important to continue developing students’ abilities to imagine interesting problems to address and to explain these in their papers (i.e. standard introduction) and to continue emphasizing reasons and evidence and acknowledgment and response.Research and Information Literacy: Research is the act of locating and accessing information; information literacy the ability to read, understand, engage with, and use the information one locates and accesses. In WR 150, students should come to understand that texts have forms that have evolved or have been designed to facilitate certain reading practices. By the end of the WR 100/150 sequence, students should habitually ask themselves how a given text is structured and what reading practices that structure encourages.Prose Style: The Course Requirements for WR 100 encourages instructors to refrain from emphasizing matters of sentence-level style until at least midway through WR 100. The reason for this recommendation is that sentence-level issues are addressed most effectively when students have a grasp of academic argumentation and principles of organization. In WR 150, students should have opportunities to work intensively on their prose style. They should also develop an understanding of the principles of citation and receive practice with at least one citation format.III. Course Requirements for StudentsSelf-Assessment: Within the first two weeks of the semester, all students must submit written self-assessments in which they take stock of their abilities as readers and writers and set some learning goals for themselves. In WR 150, the self-assessment should facilitate students’ transition from WR 100 to WR 150. At your discretion, you may require students to draw their final portfolios from WR 100. Remember that most students taking WR 150 in the spring will have written lengthy portfolio introductions only a month earlier. You therefore need to ensure that the self-assessment you assign for WR 150 is not redundant. Our recommendation is that you emphasize the forward-looking aspects of the self-assessment. What goals do they want to set for themselves now?Three Major Papers: In WR 150, students must complete three polished papers totaling 6,500-8,000 words (20-25 pages). With the possible exception of the second paper (see below) these papers should be academic arguments involving at least three sources, at least one of which must be an exhibit and at least one of which must be an argument source. Paper 1: Expertise and Transfer: The first paper should be similar in kind to the second or third paper in WR 100. This paper has two main purposes. First, it gives you an opportunity to introduce students to your course topic, to begin establishing the foundation of expertise on which they will draw in their later research papers. Second, it gives students and opportunity to transfer what they learned in WR 100 to the new context of WR 150. Use this assignment to help students apply and use the skills they developed in WR 100 in the new context of your WR 150 class. Remember that writers’ competence declines when they move from an area of relative expertise to an area of relative ignorance (i.e., from writing about a topic they’ve spent 14 weeks thinking about to writing about a new topic for a new teacher). You can imagine this assignment as a reprise of paper 2 or paper 3 from WR 100. It should be about the same length and have about the same degree of scaffolding or constraints. In this paper, students should be writing largely about materials provided by the instructor. Little if any “outside” research should be required for this paper. If you wish, you may give students the option of using outside materials and ask them to do some modest work in the library or with online databases in anticipation of later assignments.Paper 2: Transition: Paper 2 is a transitional assignment that prepares students for the third paper, the capstone assignment for the WR 100/150 sequence. Your assignment can have some scaffolding, but you should also give your students increased latitude to define and shape their own research and writing projects. If you have not yet done so, you should introduce students to library/database research, and you should create opportunities for students to practice selecting materials to use in their writing from the array of materials at their disposal (those assigned by you, those they have found through their own research).For the second paper of WR 150, as for the second paper of WR 100, you may have students write source-based academic arguments or papers in an alternative genre. Whichever option you choose, this paper involve some research and should play the transitional role described above. If you choose to assign a paper in an alternative genre (e.g., imaginative dialog, personal essay, ethnography, memoir, review), your assignment should be structured and framed so that it contributes to the course’s overarching goal of teaching students to write source-based academic arguments. If you choose this option, please notify the Writing Program of your choice by emailing your assignment sheet to wpadmin@bu.edu.Paper 3: Capstone: This paper is the capstone paper for the WR 100/150 sequence. It should require significant outside research and should be roughly 2,500 words in length. Students should have significant latitude in defining their research and writing projects. At this point in the semester, you should be introducing few if any new concepts or skills; rather, the emphasis should be on helping students integrate and apply the concepts and skills they have learned over the entirety of the WR 100/150 sequence to produce a substantial, researched academic argument.Exercises (In-Class or Take-Home): Exercises are short, low-stakes assignments or activities. Students are expected to complete exercises as assigned. As a teacher, you can use exercises for a range of purposes:to teach or reinforce specific reading and writing skillsto structure students’ engagement with the course materialsto frame or prime class discussionsto provide opportunities for metacognitive or reflective workto help students plan their papers (e.g., précis, outlines, project plans)to facilitate researchto facilitate drafting, revision, and workshopping.This list is not exhaustive. Exercises need not receive formal grades. If you do grade exercises, they should cumulatively count for no more than 10% of the course grade.One sort of exercise is worthy of special note: the annotated bibliography. Because WR 150 emphasizes research and information literacy, annotated bibliographies can be especially valuable. You are encouraged to have students compile and share annotated bibliographies of their research findings and/or of the materials you assign. You are encouraged to have your students collaborate in their research and to contribute their findings to a class “archive” (which will also include materials made available by you). Use of electronic bibliographic tools such as RefWorks or Zotero (individual and/or class site) is encouraged.Conferences: You are required to hold one formal, individual conference with each student. You are encouraged to hold multiple conferences (individual or group) with your students if you find conferences an effective way to teach. It is acceptable to hold conferences with students to discuss their work in progress in lieu of writing extensive comments on drafts.Participation and Attendance: As described in syllabus template and below.Library Orientation: You should schedule at least one class visit to the library. The orientation should familiarize students with the library’s physical layout and introduce them to the various ways in which information is stored, organized, and accessed. For additional information about the library orientation and about connecting with your assigned reference librarian, consult the handout on the WPNet. Final Portfolio: Each student must submit a final portfolio containing at least the following:An introduction of approximately 1000 words (3-4 pages) assessing the student’s progress toward the course goals and perhaps also toward the personal goals articulated in the student’s self-assessmentThe student’s self-assessment from the beginning of the semesterThe final version of each major paperAt least one draft of the third major paperIf you do not require all of your students to include these materials in their final portfolios, you will be responsible for adding them to the portfolios selected for assessment.Students in classes that are using conventional portfolios (not Digication) should post their portfolios to Blackboard as Word or pdf documents. Students in classes that are using Digication should ensure that their portfolios can be accessed and read by their instructors. Additional formatting may be required of portfolios identified for evaluation in the Writing Program’s curriculum assessment.IV. Additional Requirements for InstructorsSyllabus: You should provide students with a detailed syllabus that describes the course goals, outlines course policies and grading practices, and identifies due dates for readings and major assignments. Certain sections of our syllabi, such as the statement of course goals, will be common across all sections. Please see the syllabus template for additional information about this requirement.Assignment Sheets: You should give students a detailed assignment sheet for each major paper. These assignment sheets should have the following sections:Goals or Purpose: What specifically are students supposed to learn or learn to do as they write this paper? Use this section to frame the assignment in terms of the course goals.Prompt, Tasks, or Questions: What specifically are students supposed to do? This section should be relatively succinct. Save commentary for the Notes/Comments section.Formatting and Submission Instructions: How long should the paper be? What documentation format should students use? What are the due dates for drafts and for the finished version? How should the paper be submitted (hardcopy, Blackboard dropbox, Digication)? Etc.Notes or Comments (Optional): Use this section to offer additional suggestions, explications, or elaborations.Feedback: You should provide timely, formative feedback on at least one draft of each major paper. You should not assign binding grades to drafts. You may, if you choose, offer provisional grades—what the draft would receive if submitted in its current state as a finished paper—or give some modest credit to encourage the timely submission of drafts. The final version of each major paper should be a polished piece of academic prose. The final version of the first paper in each course should be submitted for a grade no later than the end of the fourth week of the semester. You are obligated to provide your students with timely written, summative feedback and grades on the final version of each of the three major papers.Peer Review / Workshopping / Group Work: You should incorporate peer review or workshops into your class. You are also encouraged to use group work as a teaching technique.V. EvaluationWeighting of Coursework in Final Grades:Major Papers (distributed across three papers):70%Portfolio (introduction, framing, selection, organization, etc.):10%Discretionary:20%The discretionary 20% can be distributed as you choose. Options include:grading the self-assessment (up to 5%)grading participation (up to 5%)grading exercises (up to 10% total)increasing the weights of the major papers (up to 90% total)increasing the weight of the portfolio (up to 20% total).Attendance and Participation: Attendance should be accounted for as outlined in the syllabus template. Opinions differ among instructors on how participation should be graded. Some instructors give participation little if any explicit weight in the final grade, on the principle that participation is inevitably reflected in the quality of the students’ papers themselves. Other instructors believe that explicitly grading participation encourages students to remain actively engaged with the class and thus has pedagogical value. If you do choose to account for participation, it may be done in one of two ways: as part of the final course grade (up to 5%) or an after-the-fact adjustment to the final grade (+/- one third of a letter grade). These methods are mutually exclusive. If you opt to assign participation an explicit weight, you may not also make an after-the-fact adjustment. Likewise, if you opt to make an after-the-fact adjustment, you may not also assign participation an explicit weight.IV. Program Requirements:Syllabus Review: All WR 100 and WR 150 syllabi will be reviewed by the Writing Program to ensure that they have implemented these requirements in a reasonable fashion. You should submit your syllabus for spring 2011 to the Writing Program by Monday, December 20.Curriculum Assessment: At the end of the semester, the Writing Program will solicit selected students’ final portfolios as part of its curriculum assessment. Instructors will receive a list of names from the program and will be expected to submit portfolios to the Writing Program as instructed.WR 100 / WR 150 Timeline: What to Teach WhenSeptember 1, 2011Our writing seminars have many goals, and it is impossible as a practical matter to give all of them equal emphasis at once. Your task as a teacher is to find the right balance among them—in a particular lesson or assignment, in a particular unit, over the course of a semester. When designing your syllabus and assignments, you need to ask not only, “What should I teach?” but also, “What should I teach when?” The Course Requirements documents address the former question; this document addresses the latter. I. WR 100/WR 150 TrajectoryThe trajectory from the beginning of WR 100 to the end of WR 150 follows from three principles and one corollary:1. Start with an emphasis on mid-level issues, and broaden out to emphasize low-level and high-level issues. This principle follows from the psychology of learning. When attempting to master a new skill or area of knowledge, most people learn best when they begin at a middle level: specific enough to be comprehensible (no “heads in the clouds”) but still general enough to provide a sense of context (no “losing the forest for the trees”). Once novices are “anchored” at this middle level, they can move down to address nuances of technique or up to consider more abstract theoretical issues and questions. For us as teachers of writing, mid-level issues are at the level of the text: the level of argument (in terms of content) and the level of the single section or single paper (in terms of form). Low-level issues are at the level of the sentence: grammar, usage, style. High-level issues are at the level of systems of texts, or of what might be called discourse: genre, intertextuality, information literacy, research. Mid-level issues are at the level of the individual text. The WR 100/150 sequence should begin by anchoring students in a solid understanding of academic writing at this middle level and, as it progresses, give increasing attention to issues at the levels of discourse and the sentence.2. Start with an emphasis on developing competence, and move to an emphasis on practicing choice. Good academic writers have mastered a repertoire of rhetorical patterns and moves, but they are also good tacticians and strategists. They have a sense of when to make certain moves, and they are able to recognize options available to them, weigh pros and cons, and make reasonable choices. In the WR 100/150 sequence, the focus gradually shifts from helping students master the various patterns and moves characteristic of academic writing to helping students develop their capacities to make thoughtful decisions about what projects to pursue, what sources to use, what patterns or moves to deploy, etc.).3. Start simply, and build toward complexity. This principle too follows from the psychology of learning. When novice academic writers are firmly grounded in the “basics,” they can more ably build toward complexity and nuance. Simple doesn’t mean simplistic, and basic doesn’t mean remedial. Likewise basic does not mean low-level, as that term is used above. A commitment do beginning with the basics does not mean beginning with sentences and building up to paragraphs and whole texts. It means, at each levels described above, introducing students to fundamental concepts, patterns, and skills that they can deploy with increasing sophistication as their abilities develop and as they progress through the course. The first paper assignment in WR 100—one exhibit, one argument source or alternative position—exemplifies this principle. This assignment introduces students to the conversational model of argumentation and asks them to engage in a simple version of acknowledgement and response. This first paper is simpler than the other papers students will write, but it is not different from them in kind.Corollary: Start with tasks and assignments that are relatively structured and constrained, and move to tasks and assignments that are relatively unstructured and open. This corollary follows from principles 2 and 3. Structured assignments are good for cultivating competence because they require students to learn and execute specific moves in specific ways. More open assignments give students an opportunity to practice choice. Likewise, highly structured assignments may take longer to describe, but they are usually simpler to execute, because many decisions have already been made for the student. More open assignments can often be given quite succinctly, but they are generally more challenging than more structured assignments to execute, because students have to make so many decisions for themselves.II. Timeline: Core Skills and Points of KnowledgeThe 2011-2012 WR 100 Course Requirements document includes a list of core skills and points of knowledge that students should learn by the end of WR 100. The timeline below indicates where in WR 100 we recommend that you introduce these skills and concepts. The timeline also includes skills, concepts, and competencies that should receive emphasis in WR 150.Note that the elements on this timeline are cumulative. We recommend, for example, that students work on summary early in the semester. But this does not mean that summary should drop out of the picture when the course begins to attend to other aspects of writing.You will also note that as represented on the timeline, the WR 100/150 sequence appears to be heavily front-loaded. That appearance is somewhat deceptive because the timeline does not represent the level of sophistication at which students can be expected to deploy a particular skill. For example, students engage in acknowledgement and response in the first paper, but they will continue to work on acknowledgement and response, recursively, with increasing sophistication and complexity, throughout the sequence.Labels on the timeline indicate the point in the sequence at which the skill or concept should receive the most explicit attention. Students may do certain things (e.g., include a Works Cited page) before they are emphasized in the course sequence. Although WR 150 introduces fewer new skills and concepts, it requires students to use the things they learned in WR 100 in more complex ways. Again, the principle of recursivity obtains. In WR 150, students return to the skills and concepts to which they were introduced in WR 100 and deploy them with increasing sophistication and—as important—with increasing independence.Appendix C. FacultyTable 1. Number of Instructors by Rank, 2009-2012WP Profs.Full-time Lecturers (FTLs)Part-time Lecturers (PTLs)Graduate Writing Fellows (GWFs)Teaching Fellows (TFs)Non-Dept. FacultyTotalFall 2009343302171105Spring 20103425207178Fall 2010342322441106Spring 201124122284299Fall 2011244262472105Spring 2012344222571101Table 2. Percent of courses taught by rank, 2001-2002 to presentProfessors/Other Dept*Full-Time LecturerPart-Time LecturerGWF / TF2001-20024746162002-200364831162003-200474725212004/200565228142005/200645329142006/200735723162007/200825426162008/200935724162009/201036417162010/201125725162011/20122592217*Includes Writing Program professors and directorial staff and non-departmental faculty** WR 202 A & 202 B (are counted as 1 section together)Table 3. Attrition of full-time faculty, 2001-2002 to presentYearRate of Attrition2001-200254%2002-200351%2003-200421%2004-200517%2005-200618%2006-200715%2007-20085%2008-20090%2009-20109%2010-20110%2011-20127%Table 4. Fall 2011 Survey of Faculty Average Time Use by TaskWeek*Grading/CommentsTeaching **Face to Face MeetingsBU EmailLesson PlanningAdmin TasksBU & WP ServiceProf. Develop-mentOtherWeekly Avg AllW1 (8)2.629.00.213.434.962.152.352.421.4638.78W2 (6)2.759.00.753.164.001.501.10.4.10.8034.65W3 (6)3.209.006.51.52.04.79.79.661.0036.66W4 (6)8.459.006.912.03.83.75.83.401.0035.08W5 (6)12.209.002.542.292.871.25.601.434.1533.98W6 (6)5.619.002.332.952.901.452.75.501.3037.20W7 (4)11.629.004.563.432.37.871.18.550.0037.00W8 (5)11.709.004.153.73.003.102.25.81.8038.75W9 (3)12.679.004.183.161.811.931.43.50.5036.06W10 (4)15.319.008.063.122.751.502.061.061.2544.12W11 (3)9.339.003.254.03.753.663.411.332.2539.37W12 (3)5.009.001.333.33.753.081.750.007.335.58W13 (2)19.59.004.454.622.253.121.751.00.5045.75W14 (2)17.759.0012.376.12.755.621.51.000.0053.10*The number of participants for each week is listed in parenthesis.** Not an average.Graduate Writing Fellows, 2011-2012New Fellows:Berhnoft, IainCordner, SheilaEdwards, ZophiaGriffiths, EmilyHolcombe, HeatherKoefoed, JonathanLeFebvre, NikiParnoTravisPr?gerUlrikeRileyCaseySchneider,RachelZibrak,ArielleZimmer, EricaReturning Fellows:Blumenthal, SethBowman, Cara Champion, JaredDonovan, HollyField,EmilyGilbert, LindseyHolm,SethJarvis, EricJones, MeghenKent, JessicaLoh, BrianPotorti,MaryRobinson, JosephRoot, Colin Schaaf, HollyShapiro,AaronSirman, BrianStokes, MatthewWallace, ElizaAppendix D. Enrollments and PlacementsTable 1. Enrollment statistics for Writing Program courses, AY 2011-2012??Fall 2011Spring 2012AY 11-12WR097 (ESL)Sections11213?Seats16530195?Students16626192?Efficiency101%87%98%WR098 (ESL)Sections151227?Seats225180405?Students236170406?Efficiency105%94%100%WR100Sections14518163?Seats29003603260?Students27682793047?Efficiency95%78%93%WR150Sections28139167?Seats50425023006?Students44623592805?Efficiency88%94%93%WR202Sections1.51.5?Seats402060?Students251237?Efficiency63%60%62%All ESLSections261440?Seats390210600?Students402196598?Efficiency103%93%100%All Non-ESLSections174157.5331.5?Seats344428826326?Students323926505889?Efficiency94%92%93%TotalSections200171.5371.5?Seats383430926926?Students364128466487?Efficiency95%92%94%Table 2. Total enrollments in CAS writing courses, 1999-2012(CAS Writing Program implemented September 1, 2001)1999-20002918*2000-20013199*2001-200246872002-200360432003-200460952004-200567122005-200667182006-200764722007-200863982008-200965692009-201062022010-201166832011-20126487* This summary includes years prior to Fall 2001, when the College of Arts and Sciences and most other schools and colleges had only a one-semester writing requirement, from which students could exempt through SAT, AP, and ACH scores. Table 3. Relative frequencies of class years in Fall sections of WR 150, 2005-2011 SemesterFreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorNondegDeg CandTotalFall 20055.5%68.8%15.9%8.5%1.2%0.0%100.0%Fall 20064.6%73.3%13.9%7.4%0.5%0.4%100.0%Fall 20076.0%69.6%15.1%8.5%0.4%0.4%100.0%Fall 20085.0%72.7%14.4%7.8%0.0%0.2%100.0%Fall 20090.2%77.0%13.4%9.2%0.2%0.0%100.0%Fall 20101.4%73.5%13.7%10.9%0.2%0.2%100.0%Fall 20111.1%71.1%16.7%10.4%0.0%0.7%100.0%Average3.4%72.3%14.7%9.0%0.4%0.3%100.0%Table 4. Relative frequencies of class years in spring sections of WR 150, 2006-2012 SemesterFreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorNondegDeg CandMed 2ndTotalSpring 200680.1%14.6%2.8%2.2%0.1%0.1%0.0%100.0%Spring 200781.4%12.6%3.3%2.1%0.2%0.3%0.0%100.0%Spring 200883.1%11.6%2.6%2.4%0.0%0.1%0.0%100.0%Spring 200982.4%13.0%2.7%1.7%0.2%0.0%0.0%100.0%Spring 201084.0%11.8%2.2%1.8%0.0%0.1%0.0%100.0%Spring 201183.6%11.9%3.1%1.2%0.2%0.0%0.0%100.0%Spring 201277.8%15.5%4.1%2.4%0.1%0.1%0.0%100.0%Average81.8%13.0%3.0%2.0%0.1%0.1%0.0%100.0%Tables 5-6. Placement Data Fall 2009-Spring 2012 (Percentages and Actual)Semester Entering BU*TestWR 097 PlacementsWR 098 PlacementsWR 100 PlacementsTotal Students TestedFall 2009ESL Test88233147468Spring 2010ESL Test112518Fall 2010ESL Test146222126494Spring 2011ESL Test0505Fall 2011ESL Test196256125577Spring 2012ESL Test75517Semester Entering BU*TestESL PlacementsWR 100 PlacementsFall 2009ESL Test68.6%31.4%Spring 2010ESL Test72.2%27.8%Fall 2010ESL Test74.5%25.5%Spring 2011ESL Test100.0%0.0%Fall 2011ESL Test78.3%21.7%Spring 2012ESL Test70.6%29.4%*This table assumes that all students who take the placement test in the summer or early Fall are students entering BU in the Fall semester and all students who take the test in the spring are entering in the spring semester as this is true in almost all cases.Appendix E. Committees and BoardsCurriculum CommitteeGwen Kordonowy, Co-ChairChristina Michaud, Co-ChairSarah CampbellIvan EubanksRaleigh FinlaysonEmily Griffiths JonesSarah Madsen HardyTom OllerJames PastoMikel SatcherJason TandonLeslie YoderMaria ZlatevaFaculty Issues CommitteeCarrie Bennett, Co-ChairTony Wallace, Co-ChairJura AvizienisSarah HanselmanBill MarxMichael RodriguezTom VillanoWR Editorial Board (and Prize Essay Selection Committee)Ivan Eubanks, Co-EditorMarisa Milanese, Co-EditorAlyssa Hall, Managing EditorKimberly Gomez, Associate EditorGwen Kordonowy, Associate EditorSarah Madsen Hardy, Associate EditorScott Challener, Assistant EditorStephen Hodin, Assistant EditorRebecca Kinraide, Assistant EditorDavid Shawn, Assistant EditorMaria GapotchenkoTheodora GossBrad QueenMelanie SmithJason TandonLecturer Promotion CommitteeMichael DegenerMaria GapotchenkoChristina LukeMarisa MilaneseSamantha MyersBradley QueenDavid ShawnAnthony WallaceLecturer Search CommitteeCarrie BennettScott ChallenerGwen KordonowySarah Madsen HardyThomas OllerJames PastoMaria ZlatevaMerit Review CommitteeMaria GapotchenkoChristina LukeMarisa MilaneseSamantha MyersDavid ShawnGraduate Writing Fellow Selection CommitteeChristopher Walsh, ChairDora GossJames PastoJared Champion (graduate student)Eric Jarvis (graduate student)Emily Griffiths Jones (graduate student)Awards for Writing Excellence Selection CommitteeJoseph BizupSarah CampbellMaria GapotchenkoCreative Writing Working GroupDiane AllenbergAlbert DaliaBilly GiraldiDiane Greco JosefowiczMatthew StokesTom VillanoInformation Literacy GroupMichael DegenerIvan EubanksJames PastoTony WallaceLittle Red Schoolhouse Working GroupAllison BlylerSarah CampbellScott ChallenerGwen KordonowyThomas OllerJames PastoMelanie SmithChris WalshMary ZimmerMaria Zlateva.Appendix F. Arts & Sciences Writing CenterF.1. Undergraduate Writing Fellows in 2011-2012 were as follows:Deanna BaumleAbigail ClauhsJohn CollinsBret FeldmanEmma HendryJenna KellyBrendan MayerGeorgianne MaroonJennifer RuenesCaroline StackKelli SwensenHannah WaltersWong,Alia,EmilyTable 1. Efficiency of the Arts & Sciences Writing CenterSemester# Undergrad Tutors # Grad Tutors # Reser-vationsHours AvailableHours UsedEfficiencyFall 2007121722492491146459%Spring 200891517241946114959%Fall 2008 *121421111888158284%Spring 2009131416821945123964%Fall 2009151518142078125861%Spring 2010131313451705101059%Fall 2010141120542006154177%Spring 2011121117412019130665%Fall 2011111321751631199881%Spring 2012121217131285134478%The statistics do not count cancelled appointments, but do count No Show appointments (appointments that were not cancelled, but were not attended). No Show appointments are included in the used hours as if they were attended.F.2. Selected Comments from Tutors’ WR 598 Final Portfolios“I have always been passionate about helping students to discover the joys of expressing oneself, but WR 598 gave me many more tools to properly serve the students of Boston University through my tutoring sessions.” “Now I am excited to see ESL students on my tutoring schedule. I am more equipped to empower them.” “I have come to understand more of the metacognitive aspects of working with ESL students.” “Upon becoming cognizant of these aspects of learning, I began to integrate that knowledge into my tutoring practices.” “Our job [as ESL tutors] is not only to assist in writing but also assist in language acquisition.” [Questions generated by a tutor in response to course readings:] “How can we help bridge the gap between what L2 learners find most difficult and what professors find most problematic?” “How can we use our role as cultural informants to help with rhetoric?” “What role, if any, will globalization play in diminishing the differences in writing styles across cultures, and how will this affect teaching L2 writers?” “I have been able to put a lot of the course material into practice in my tutoring sessions, as well as take the advice of other tutors and use their stories to improve my own sessions.” “For me, the WR 598 class was most useful in that it gave me a theoretical background for what I was learning firsthand as I worked with students, and that it gave me a chance to learn not just from the readings but also from the other student tutors in the class.” “We’ve been a lot busier in the writing center lately, and so I haven’t had as much occasion to listen in [as in previous years]. Having an hour every week to hear about the other tutors’ work experiences is invaluable.” “As a graduating senior, I am sad to be leaving the writing center, especially now that I have learned so much and improved my tutoring skills. I hope one day to work with the ESL population again in some way, perhaps in a teaching role.” F.3. Syllabus for WR598: Tutoring ESL Students in WritingWR598A1: Wed. 4-5:30, CAS 323BInstructor: Maria Zlateva, ESL Director CAS Writing ProgramOffice: 236 Bay State Rd. room 110Tel. (617)353-2511E-mail: mariazl@bu.eduOffice hours: M 2-3; W 1-2; Th 11-12, and by appointmentCourse description: This course is designed to prepare Writing Center tutors to work effectively with ESL students and is meant for undergraduate and graduate-student writing tutors. No previous familiarity with linguistics or ESL language teaching is required or assumed. The modules address the unique needs of ESL students and provide research-based principles for working with them at different proficiency levels. Upon completion of the course, tutors will have explicit knowledge about aspects of the language that pose challenges for ESL learners, as well as pedagogical knowledge to help ESL students become independent self-monitoring writers. Requirementsattendance of all sessions and active participation timely completion of readings and assignments class or tutorial observation end-of-semester service learning reflection (case study or portfolio options) Class Format: The course strikes a balance between theory and practice. Most sessions will include discussions of important theoretical issues bearing on tutoring ESL students. We will be working with assigned readings on current ESL research and best writing center practices. There will also be a practicum component consisting of observations by tutors of a WR097/WR098 class or of an entry-level ESL tutoring session. The observations will be used as a basis for case studies that will allow us take up some aspect of practical tutoring and share insights about specific concerns or interests.Texts Bedford Guide for Tutors, 5th ed. 2010 (BGT)- sections posted on BbESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, Boynton/Cook, 2009 (ESLWR) (text provided to tutors by Writing Program)Selected additional readings in order of class presentation:Cumming, A. “Learning to Write in a Second Language: Two Decades of Research.” International Journal of English Studies 1 (2003): 1-23.Williams, J. and Carol Severino. “The Writing Center and Second Language Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 165-172.Harris, M. “Cultural Conflicts in the Writing Center: Expectations and Assumptions of ESL Students.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 206-219.Thonus, T.” What Are the Differences? Tutor Interactions with First- and Second-Language Writers.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 227-42.Meyer, E. and Louise Z. Smith. “Reading and Writing across the Disciplines.” The Practical Tutor. NY: Oxford UP, 1987. 227-255.Grabe, W. “Research on Teaching Reading.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24 (2004): 44-70.Santos, T. “Professors’ Reactions to the Academic Writing of Nonnative –Speaking Students.” TESOL Quarterly 22, 1 (1988): 69-90.Boyne, M. and Don Lepan. “Specific Language Difficulties.” Common Errors in English. ESL Edition. NY: Broadview Press, 1995. 151-155.Connor, U. “New Directions in Contrastive Rhetoric.” TESOL Quarterly 36 (2002): 493-510.Currie, P. “Staying out of Trouble: Apparent Plagiarism and Academic Survival.” Journal of Second Language Writing 7.1 (1998): 1-18.Weigle, S. and Gayle Nelson. “Novice Tutors and Their ESL Tutees: Three Case Studies of Tutor Roles and Perceptions of Tutorial Success.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 203-55.Brooks, J. “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 168-173.The course has a Blackboard website where relevant assigned readings and ancillary materials will be posted. Class ScheduleReadings are listed under each session by the bibliography numbers or text abbreviations above.1/18, Session 1: Course introduction The specifics of ESL tutoring and its place in the Writing Center;Overview of contrastive rhetoric and educational conventions: features of ESL writing, argumentation patterns, and academic roles; Starting a tutor-tutee partnership: bridging languages and cultures. Reading: 1; BGT 65-69; ESLWR 1-321/25, Session 2: Metacognitive assessment of the tutee Expectations and assumptions of the parties involved; Clarifying the stages of ESL competence – the balance of language skills; Diagnosing student needs and setting priorities; Tutor-instructor collaboration. Reading: 2, 3, 4; BGT 58-65 (see Bb for details)2/1, Session 3: Reading comprehension and its challenges in ESL Specifics of the second-language reading process; Genre awareness; Mental outlining and mapping techniques; Helping students review their writing using heuristic techniques. Reading: 5, 6 (see Bb for details)2/8, Session 4: Structuring the tutorial sessionDiagnosing student needs and setting priorities - between higher-order and lower- order concerns;Grammar and usage: recognizing the “remediable” vs. the “fossilized” aspects - deciding on a level of intervention; Cultivating the skill of “grammaring” vs. prescriptive grammar knowledge. Reading: 7; ESLWR 33-50 (see Bb for details)2/15, Session 5: Approaching grammar Language challenges posed by L1 and L2 – linguistic patterns of structure and usage; Trouble spots and diagnostic exercises; Working with ESL materials. Reading: 8, 9 (see Bb for details)2/22, Session 6: Error analysis and treatment of errors– theoretical underpinnings with practical implications Reference guidelines on types of errors; Predicting and understanding the problem; Productive tutoring techniques tailored to the problem. Reading: ESLWR ch. 17 (see Bb for details)2/29, Session 7: Error correction - pedagogical strategies Self-monitoring and editing for language issues; Use of handbooks and reference materials. Reading: ESLWR ch. 10 (see Bb for details)3/7, Session 8: Observations and conferencesSpring break: 3/12- 3/183/21, Session 9: Conversation with sources Applying the “acknowledgment /response” model in tutoring; Integrating source material with appropriate diction and grammar; Avoiding plagiarism. Reading: 10; ESLWR ch. 133/28, Session 10: Observations and conferences 4/4, Session 11: Case studies – discussion Targeting specific issues of cultural and linguistic nature Reading: 11; BGT 99-110 (see Bb for details)4/11, Session 12: Grammar & style – who owns this paper? Minimalist vs. proofreading approach; Identifying patterns of grammatical or stylistic errors or “tics”; Guiding students in developing self-editing strategies. Reading: 12, ESLWR ch. 18 (see Bb for details)NB: 4/18 = BU Monday schedule 4/25, Session 13: Observations and conferences; Case study consultations5/2, Session 14: Case studies – debriefing Setting individual goals for the tutee to achieve a balance of skills; Follow-up agenda and tracking progress; Course conclusion and course evaluations. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download