APPENDIX: Data about Writing at UGA
prepared by Christopher Hayes and Fran Teague

In 1996-97, a year before UGA implemented the semester calendar, a small group of UGA researchers, the Academic Literacy Committee (ALC), conducted a formal survey of faculty who taught core courses (Burrell, Tao, Simpson, and Mendez-Berrueta, “How Do We Know What We Are Preparing Our Students For? A Reality Check on One University’s Academic Literacy Demands,” in Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13.2 [1997], 55-70). In particular, the survey investigated three related topics: (1) the literacy demands that faculty believed necessary for undergraduates’ academic success in the core courses; (2) the varying literacy expectations and demands across disciplinary courses; and (3) faculty concerns about and recommendations for improving students’ abilities to meet those expectations. Although the primary purpose of the study was to guide UGA faculty as they and their students adjusted to the curricular demands of the semester system, many of the findings foreshadowed those of subsequent NSSE and FSSE surveys and of the more recent UGA Writing Alliance survey.

According to the ALC researchers, the “most prevalent” faculty expectation was that students be able “to analyze, synthesize, problem-solve, apply, argue persuasively, or critique, and to demonstrate these processes in their papers, library projects, and exams” (66). However, of the 440 respondents to the ALC survey, only 54% reported using writing as a means of evaluation (e.g., in-class essays, research papers, lab reports). As one would expect, the uses and genres of assigned writing varied across disciplines, with faculty in the humanities and social sciences assigning the most written work. Of the 120 respondents who assigned writing, a slight majority (53%) rated students’ writing quality as “acceptable,” while 26% rated it as “weak,” 14% as “good,” 4% as “poor,” and 2% as “excellent.” Nearly three quarters (73%) stated that the quality of student writing affected student grades either “significantly” or “somewhat.” The most common writing flaws included problems in focus (77%), organization (77%), word choice (65%), superficiality of topic (64%), grammar (64%), and syntax (54%).

Perhaps even more instructive than faculty attitudes toward the quality of student writing were faculty attitudes toward undergraduate students’ academic behaviors and cognitive abilities, attitudes, once again, that presaged later FSSE and NSSE findings. Specifically, 67% of respondents reported that students failed to spend sufficient time out of class preparing for their courses or doing assigned reading. Contrary to their expectations, respondents also lamented that “their students could not do research papers or lengthy papers requiring analytical thinking” (65). These perceptions are likely reasons that only 19% of respondents said that they assigned projects requiring research.

As early as 1996-97, then, faculty expressed concerns about the quality and level of undergraduate students' academic attitudes and behaviors, cognitive performance, and writing experiences. Faculty members' reluctance to assign and comment on student writing perpetuated a climate in which many students failed to receive writing practice and instruction beyond the required first-year requirement, so students continued to hand in flawed written or research-based assignments in their upper-level courses.

In 2003 the NSSE Survey gave UGA disturbing results when students were asked about their communication skills. Seniors reported reading fewer books for class than did first-year students; overall students said they read rarely on their own. Almost all said they had not written a paper of 20 pages or more; most said they had written only 1 to 4 papers between 5 and 19 pages. In other words, once they left FYC, students were infrequently asked to write papers of substantial depth and sustained analysis. When the NSSE was re-administered in 2005, little had changed as far as writing. The results from 2005 NSSE showed that “problem areas that surfaced in 2003 were still evident in 2005. UGA students continued to report a lower number of reading assignments, fewer writing assignments, and studying or spending less time on academic work than their counterparts at peer and aspirational institutions” (Sharron Hannon, “National survey compares student experiences at University of Georgia, other institutions,” Columns 28 November 2005). The 2003 study included a pilot program FSSE (Faculty Survey of Student Expectations). About half the faculty surveyed said they did not ask students to write papers that were 5 pages or longer. Eighty percent of the faculty respondents did not ask for a paper of 10 pages or more.

In the 2003 NSSE students said communication and thinking skills mattered “very much” or “quite a lot”:
Writing clearly and effectively, 72% first-years, 74% seniors
Speaking clearly and effectively, 50% first-years, 66% seniors
Thinking critically and analytically, 80% first-years, 85% seniors
Following receipt of the NSSE results, Vice President for Instruction Del Dunn held a series of conversations with faculty and student groups and discussed the results; a committee put together information from the NSSE and FSSE with those conversations in a substantial advisory report. Of writing, the committee said,

The NSSE and FSSE results made it clear that while both faculty and students consider writing one of the most important skills in the classroom and after graduation, students receive fewer writing assignments and faculty assign less writing than at comparable institutions. Faculty spoke of their frustration because while they want to use more writing assignments, they are unsure of how to make such assignments without radically increasing their workload, nor are they confident of how to assess such assignments. Students, too, expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to handle a variety of writing tasks, especially in their fields of concentration. While the Writing Intensive Program offers some guidance for faculty, it is limited to the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences and has limited resources so it can affect relatively few classes each term.

Those concerns about writing that faculty and students raised in the conversations also touch on the themes of Curriculum, Student-Faculty Interaction, and Writing, suggesting the centrality of this issue to UGA. Furthermore, a substantial body of research shows such anxiety can be addressed and writing skills can be improved. In other words, writing is an area in which the University of Georgia faculty and staff fell short of where we want to be, and it is an area in which we can make straightforward changes that should have an impact by the time of the next NSSE administration.

From a SACS perspective, our participation in NSSE and these follow-up activities are closing the loop on assessment—learning about our strengths and weaknesses, what we are doing about the weaknesses, how we are folding changes back in to the curriculum, and then re-assessing.

Effective Writing
President Michael Adams stated in his 2005 State of the University Address: “Writing is the synthesizing exercise of an educated mind.” Currently, many students are not required to write a substantial paper after they complete the composition courses, English 1101 and 1102. Across the curriculum and across all four years of university education, the faculty must reinforce and sustain a commitment to excellence in writing. Expanding an existing program like the Franklin College Writing Intensive Program across the University by incorporating significant writing assignments into upper-level departmental courses would help to standardize writing education across the University.

RECOMMENDATION: Incorporate significant writing assignments into more courses across the University so that students are exposed to rigorous writing experiences throughout their undergraduate career.
Writing Intensive Courses
Task Force members suggested expanding the system that designates courses as writing intensive. Expansion of this system would allow the University Curriculum Committee to designate additional courses that meet a minimum number of writing assignments as “writing intensive.” Each graduating student should take at least two writing intensive courses.
RECOMMENDATION: Expand the current system that designates selected classes as “writing intensive” or containing a “writing component” across the University.

To date, however, UGA has done little. Writing intensive courses cannot yet be shown on the transcript, students do not receive more significant writing assignments, nor are faculty making such assignments.

Why don’t faculty use writing in their classrooms? In conversations with faculty at Teaching Academy meetings, presentations on teaching with writing, and informal discussions with Task Force members, the same reasons keep showing up. Mark Dawkins interviewed a colleague known for her exemplary teaching, and her experience might serve as an illustration of the difficulties:

Professor Linda Bamber is a chaired professor in the School of Accounting who is well known in the Terry College of Business for the writing assignments required in her classes (she is equally well known for her teaching excellence).  I met with Linda Wednesday morning to discuss how she incorporates writing into her managerial accounting classes. 

Linda explained that it is important to get the students to “buy into” the importance of improving their writing skills.  She provides them with a PricewaterhouseCoopers document that discusses four (4) gaps the firm finds in most new hires’ skill set, and one of the gaps is oral and written communication.  This allows Linda to say that she is assigning writing assignments to help students address a problem identified by an employer, rather than to merely torture students (i.e., she is not the bad guy, the market requires these skills).

Linda emphasized that she must continually “market” the benefits of the writing assignments to students throughout the semester.  She identified two barriers that faculty face in incorporating writing assignments in their classes: time and incentives.  Incorporating writing assignments in class is extremely time-consuming for faculty to grade and provide feedback, and there are few (if any) incentives for faculty to do so.

Linda requires her students to turn in a memo about every two-three (2-3) weeks, or a total of six (6) memos a semester.  Her writing assignments are done using teams.  In a typical semester she forms 22 teams of 6 students, so the total memos submitted in a semester is 132 (22 teams x 6 memos per team).  The memos vary in length and complexity, and team members grade each other at the end of the semester.

Linda allows 20 minutes to grade each memo, so the total grading time is 44 hours.  Linda has done all of the grading in past semesters, and has also used a graduate of the English program to grade in past semesters.  She pays the grader $20/hour, or $880 per semester (actually $1,000 per semester).  Linda notes that it is imperative to have reasonable class sizes to implement her approach, and each faculty must be able to use a TA to grade.  It is also imperative that TAs have discipline-specific knowledge to be effective.

The other issue Linda raised is the need to change teaching evaluations for faculty who add writing to their classes to avoid penalizing professors who assign writing assignments.  Based on student complaints I hear during the semester, I can attest that Linda’s stellar teaching evaluations would be even higher if she did not assign writing in her classes.  (Email from Mark Dawkins, 31 January 2007)

Bamber’s concerns were echoed by other faculty with whom we talked. Undergraduate classes are too large to guide and assess writing. The faculty member’s office hours have to expand to accommodate students who are unhappy or baffled by the assignment. Most faculty are unaware that support services like the Writing Centers exist. Nor have they received any faculty development training in how they can use writing effectively. Writing assignments can create student resentment if other sections are not being asked to write, as well as student anxiety that weak writing skills will obscure their mastery of the subject. The end results are not good: even students who take the trouble to avoid mechanical or grammatical errors have no facility in the sort of communication skills that a particular discipline demands. As an assistant professor observed, she wanted to teach her undergraduates as she had herself been taught, but she found her own research went neglected because of the time demands, while her student evaluations were disastrous.  An associate professor in the life sciences commented that his students tried to write research reports as if these were English themes instead of discipline-specific reports.  Such problems come not from a lack of ability among students, but rather from a lack of training and of support.

Foundations in Writing and Critical Thinking (Required University Writing Courses)

The following courses, which are part of Area A or B in the current UGA General Education core, provide an introduction to university-level ways of thinking, reading, and writing – an introduction to academic discourse. Courses marked by an asterisk are open only to multilingual students.

• UNIV 1115: Introduction to Academic Writing or UNIV 1117: Basic Composition for Multilingual Writers* (elective prerequisite to ENGL 1101)
• ENGL 1050H: Composition and Literature (Honors)
• ENGL 1060H: Composition and Multicultural Literature (Honors)
• ENGL 1101: English Composition I (required) or ENGL 1101: English Composition I for multilingual students*
• ENGL 1102: English Composition II (required) or ENGL 1102: English Composition II for multilingual students*
• ENGL 1102M: Multicultural English Composition

Advanced Writing Skills (Elective Courses)

As students move beyond their first year through their General Education courses and into their major, they may want to target particular aspects of the writing process for further work and exploration. These three-hour classes provide that focused and intense instruction in writing tasks and processes.

• UNIV 1105: Improving Grammar, Usage, and Style
• UNIV 1109: Resources for Research
• UNIV 2201: Introduction to the Research Paper
• UNIV 2202: Academic Writing for Multilingual Students
• UNIV 2203: Improving Academic Writing
• ENGL 3600: Advanced Composition

Writing in the Disciplines, model A (Course-specific Writing Courses or Labs)

Teachers of a particular course in any department may choose to include a "lab" component that is co-taught by a faculty member from the Division of Academic Enhancement and one from the University Libraries. These courses are offered for variable credit (1-2 hours) and emphasize the research and writing processes/products for specific assignments in the associated disciplinary course.

• UNIV 3000: Research and Writing for the Discipline (Lab)
• HONS 4960H/4970H/4980H/4990H: Honors Undergraduate Research

Writing in the Disciplines, model B (Writing Intensive Program designated courses)

Approximately 45 classes each semester are designated as writing-intensive by the Franklin College Writing Intensive Program. These courses are regularly offered courses in a variety of disciplines (e.g., Chemistry, Geology, Sociology, Classics, Music) and provide significant writing opportunities as well as writing instruction via a specially trained Teaching Assistant, who supports the course by serving as a writing coach. The list of all designated and supported Writing Intensive Program courses can be found at www.wip.uga.edu.

Specialized Writing Courses

For students who seek to become a writing specialist, whether in industry, business, science, or academia, these courses focus on teaching students how to write within a range of professional contexts.

• UNIV 1106: Basic Report Writing for College and Beyond
• ENGL 3600: Advanced Composition
• ENGL 3590: Technical and Professional Communication
• ENGL 4830: Advanced Studies in Writing: Writing for the World Wide Web

Description of the Program
The writing certificate program (WCP) serves the university’s students by allowing them to learn about writing as a cognitive process and to hone communication skills. Students who seek the certificate will learn about the process of writing for various purposes, learn research and planning skills that will help them in their other coursework, and be able to demonstrate their skills to potential employers. Students who wish to do so may concentrate their study on writing essays, but other students can concentrate on producing presentations or proposals.

Offering a portfolio-based undergraduate certificate in writing allows students in every college to document and publish their ability to write effectively when they graduate. In <emma> and LiveText, already adopted across First-year Composition and in the College of Education respectively, the university has in place the means to facilitate such electronic portfolios. Qualified students who have not taken the first-year sequence on this campus will meet with the WCP coordinator, who can set up an appropriate portfolio for them.

Coursework
The coursework for this certificate will fall in three phases: a course of introduction to the writing process, several writing-intensive courses, and an intensive individual writing project. Students will build on their work in First-year Composition by taking a three-hour course dedicated to the writing process: UNIV 2201, 2202, 2203, ENGL 3590, 3600. They should also take nine to twelve hours of courses designated as writing intensive. Those courses could include

• classes offered through an expanded Writing Intensive Program
• other courses that have as a one- or two-hour section on writing (Since these courses vary from term to term, students should  consult the WIP website <http://www.wip.uga.edu> or the WCP Coordinator to see what is available.)
• courses that have been approved, such as ENGL 3590 (Tech Writing), 3600 (Advanced Composition), 4830 (Advanced Studies in Writing); UNIV 2201 (Research Paper), 2202 (Academic Writing for Multilingual Students), 2203 (Improving Academic Writing); HONS 3010, 3040, 3070 (Research Methods in various disciplines); SPCM 2100 (advanced public communication), 2300 (business and professional communication).
• courses that the WSC Director approves on an ad hoc basis because of an individual student’s needs.

Ideally, students will conclude the WCP with three to six hours of coursework on an independent writing project. To prepare for this project, students may enroll in three hours of HONS 3010, 3040, or 3070, as well as HONS 4590 or the appropriate course in their major. This project might be produced either in a capstone course in their major that requires a substantial essay or by work on an honors thesis; students who do not take a capstone course or produce a thesis should take part in the CURO symposium to produce an independent writing project.

Throughout the program, the student compiles an electronic portfolio for evaluation.  Such a portfolio should be planned to fit a student’s individual needs.  For example a student preparing for graduate school or a professional school might include a statement of professional intent, writing samples in the appropriate discipline, a curriculum vitæ, and a cover letter.  Another student seeking employment could include a sample job letter, a résumé stating professional goals, and examples of career-specific reports.  The WCP Coordinator will appoint an assessment committee to review the portfolio and offer suggestions; if the committee finds the portfolio especially strong, it may signal that excellence by adding a letter to the file that notes the student has performed "with distinction."

Advising
Depending upon the student's degree program, Certificate courses may count toward general studies, the major, or elective offerings. A grade of C or better is required in each course. Interested students will need to discuss their plans for the Certificate with their own advisors early in their academic careers so that proper sequencing of prerequisites, where required, can be allowed for. They must also contact the program advisor to complete an application, to establish an electronic portfolio, to declare a proposed course of study, and to secure information about semester course offerings.

Potential employers, admissions committees, accrediting agencies, and the public would find such a certificate heartening, especially since it will be supported by an online portfolio of writing that demonstrates the student’s abilities.

WIP Courses 2006-07
Prepared by Michelle Ballif

Fall 2006
ARED 2000, Foundations in Art Education (Richard Siegesmund)
ARED 3350, Elementary Methods (Richard Siegesmund)
ARHI 3070, American Architecture (Tom Polk)
BIOL 1108L, Principles of Biology (Kathrin Stanger-Hall)
BIOL 1103L, Concepts in Biology I (Norris Armstrong & Peggy  Brickman)
BIOL/ECOL 3500, Ecology (Jim Richardson)
LATN 1001, Elementary Latin I (Richard LaFleur)
LATN 2001, Intermediate Latin I (Erica Hermanowicz)
CLAS 4140, Punic and Roman Carthage (Naomi Norman)
CHEM 3110, Physical Chemistry (Geoffrey Smith)
CHEM 3511L, Experimental Methods (Jim Anderson & Michael Duncan)
GEOL/ANTH 4700, Archaelogical Geography (Ervan Garrison)
HONS 4960H, Undergraduate Research (Pam Kleiber)
MATH 5035, Algebra for Middle School Teachers (Sybilla Beckmann)
MATH 5020, Arithmetic for Middle School Teachers (Sybilla Beckmann)
MUSI 3210, History of Music I (Susan Thomas)
SOCI 3220, Sociological Theory (Belisa Gonzalez)
WMST 3250, Feminism and the Body (Blaise Parker)
WMST 4011, Understanding Research (Patricia Richards)

Spring 2007
ARED 2000, Foundations in Art Education (Richard Siegesmund)
ARED 3360, Secondary Methods in Art Education (Tracie Costantino)
ARHI 4000, Early Greek Art (Frances Van Keuren)
ARHI 4916, American Landscape Painting (Janice Simon)
BIOL 1108L, Principles of Biology (Kathrin Stanger-Hall)
BIOL 1103L, Concepts in Biology I (Norris Armstrong & Peggy Brickman)
BIOL/ECOL 3500, Ecology (Mark Bradford)
CLAS 4340, Ancient Athens (Naomi Norman)
CLAS/HONS 2115H, Reacting to the Past (Keith Dix & Karin Myhre)
CMLT 4600, East Asian Literature I (Masaki Mori)
GEOL 4503, Sedimentary Geology (Steve Holland)
LATN 2001, Intermediate Latin I (Elena Bianchelli)
MATH 5030, Geometry and Measurement for Middle School Teachers (Sybilla Beckmann)
MATH 5003, Algebra and Problem Solving (Sybilla Beckmann)
MUSI 3220, History of Music II (David Schiller)
MUSI 2120, Music Theory IV (John Turci-Escobar)
SOCI 3220, Sociological Theory (Belisa Gonzalez)
WMST 4900, Senior Seminar (Patricia Richards)