The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-‐626-‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
I. Writing Plan Cover Page Please fill in the gray areas on this form.
Spring 2014 WEC Process Date Date March 21, 2015
First Edition of Writing Plan
Subsequent Edition of Writing Plan: previous plan submitted Fall/2012, First edition submitted Spr/2009
College of Design
WEC Unit Name
Architecture CDes
Department College
Julia W Robinson Prof
WEC Faculty Liaison (print name) Title
[email protected] 4-‐5733
Email Phone
Writing Plan ratified by Faculty Note: This section needs to be completed regardless of Writing Plan edition. Date:
If Vote:....15.................19
/
# yes # total
Process by which Writing Plan was ratified within unit (vote, consensus, other-‐ please explain):
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-‐626-‐7639
www.wec.umn.edu
II. Unit Profile: Unit Name Please fill in the gray areas on this form. Number of Tenured and Tenure-‐Track Faculty:
Although a good number of our Tenured and Tenure-‐Track faculty teach in our undergraduate program as well as teaching assistants, we also have a large number of adjunct faculty who instruct undergraduate students (approximately 30 people). To effect change, we need to engage with adjunct faculty as well.
9 Professors 8 Associate Professors
4 Assistant Professors
21 Total
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Major(s) Please list each major your Unit offers:
Total # students enrolled in major as of Sem Year F15
Total # students graduating with major S14-‐F15#
Bachelor of Design in Architec 156 48
BS in Architecture 116 85
Pre-‐Arch 180 NA
Total:
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐ WEC Process Date # participated / # invited
Spring TA Workshop (Grading Writin Jan 10, 2013 10 / 17
Faculty Workshhop (Using WEC Criter Jan 17, 2013 21 / 32
WEC Subcommittee March 6, 2013 3 / 5
WEC Meeting w Flash, Hein & 3JWR April 16, 2013 3 / 3
Faculty Workshop(Writing & Syllabu April 26, 2013 21 / 32
WEC Subcommittee May 16, 2013 3 / 5
Fall TA Workshop(Coaching Writin August, 27, 2013 41 / 45
Work on Faculty & Student Websites Fall Semester 2013 1 / 1
WEC Subcommittee October 18, 2013 4 / 4
Spring TA Workshop (Grading Writin January 21 5 / 32
Architecture WEC Process (Continued) Spring 2014 WEC Process Date # participated / # invited TA Workshop on Grading Writing January 21 5 32 Spring Semester Completed Websites Spr Semester 1 1 Hein meets with Comazzi & Donofrio re rubrics Spr Semester 3 3 Liaison Meeting-‐ JWR, & Hein March 14 2 2 WEC Subcommittee March 26 4 4 IWAC Conference Session Planning May 2 5 6 Faculty Workshop (May Retreat) May 17 28 Meeting Re Summer Rating (Flash & JWR) May 19 2 2 IWAC Conference Session Planning May 27 3 6 Summer 2014 WEC Process Date # participated / # invited Session at IWAC Conference June 13 6 6 Summer Rating of Courses July 25 4 4 Hiring of Annie Bearss as RA August 21 Consultation Re Rating, Flash & JWR August 21 2 2 Consultation Re Rating: Flash, Swackhamer, Comazzi & JWR
August 25 4 4
Fall 2014 WEC Process Date # participated / # invited Meeting to plan TA Worskhop: Bearss & JWR August 27 2 2 TA Workshop (Coaching Student Writing) August 28 10 28 Instructor & Student Websites online September 3 1 1 Meeting on Ratings: Swackhamer & JWR September 29 2 2 Liaison Meeting Oct 10 1 1 Lunch on WEC October 24 1 1 Revision of Website (added genres) November 2 2 Meeting with Undergraduate Directors December 18 3 3
1. Spring 2015 WEC Process Date # participated / # invited Meeting to Prepare TA Workshop: Bearss & JWR January 6 2 2 Spring TA Workshop (Grading Writing) January 16 16 26 Meeting to plan Presentation of Summer Ratings January 13 5 5 Presentation & Discussion of Summer Ratings to/with Faculty: Flash & JWR
January 15 25 26
WEC Subcommittee Meeting to Prepare Writing Plan
February 1 5 5
Faculty Discussion of Writing Plan March 30
4
IV. Writing Plan Narrative
The Office of the Vice Provost of Undergraduate Education Center for Writing
University of Minnesota 612-‐-‐-‐626-‐-‐-‐
7639 www.wec.umn.edu
Please retain section headers and prompts in your plan. Executive Summary (1-‐-‐-‐page maximum): For what reason(s) did this unit (department, school, college) become involved in the WEC project? What key implementation activities are proposed in this edition of its Writing Plan and what, briefly, is the thinking behind these proposed activities? If this is a second+ edition of this unit's Writing Plan, please describe activities that have been successfully completed and those that are new to this edition. The architecture faculty participates in the WEC program as a way to improve instruction in writing, or what we may call communication, and to explore the relation between visual communication -‐-‐-‐ an essential communicative form in architecture -‐-‐-‐ and the written word. Participation in the WEC program has allowed the architecture faculty to reflect more deeply on the relationship between writing/ visual communication and architectural design and other instruction. At this point almost all faculty members embrace the program, and appreciate the rigor with which the WEC program challenges us to examine our existing practices in order to develop better instructional techniques. Since fall semester of 2011 the WEC Subcommittee of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee has overseen the WEC program in architecture. In Fall 2014 the Directors of the two undergraduate programs joined the committee. This committee reports to the faculty on a regular basis.
The faculty was very disturbed by the results of the Summer 2014 Ratings that showed little or no progress with regard to the earlier assessment, and has developed a plan to engage all faculty more fully in the teaching of communication to our students. We will use our curriculum map from 2013 (see page 14) to develop a more comprehensive strategy that engages all courses and instructors, and are requesting support from the WEC program in two areas: faculty consultation and course assessment.
Accomplishments-‐-‐-‐ Since the Second Edition Writing Plan we have: • Worked with research assistants Mitch Hein (Spring 2013-‐Spring 2014 [hired Fall 2012]) and Annie Bears
(Fall 2015) who have helped us implement our goals. • Presented Teaching Assistant Workshops every Fall and Spring Semester • Presented 3 Faculty Workshops • Developed 2 websites, one for students and one for faculty. • TAs have worked with individual faculty to apply the Writing Criteria to syllabus, rubrics, and instruction
Activities Remaining and New-‐-‐-‐ In the two years we plan to:
• Review and revise our curriculum mapping to more effectively capture what we are doing and to develop a strategic plan of action that involves all undergraduate courses
• Work with the WEC staff to provide Expert consultation with individual faculty members • Continue to provide TA Workshops each semester and Faculty Workshops at least once a year • Work with the departmental administration to increase the TA-‐faculty ratios in WI courses • Work with the Student Advisory Boards for BDA and BS programs to improve the Student Writing in
Architecture website that we have developed, so students will use it more effectively • Work with the WEC staff to have ongoing assess one to three courses in terms of the effectiveness of the
writing instruction, evaluating writing at the beginning and ends of the semester.
5
Section 1: DISCIPLINE-‐-‐-‐SPECIFIC WRITING CHARACTERISTICS *: What characterizes academic and professional communication in this discipline? If this is a subsequent edition and changes have been made to this list, please highlight and explain the changes. This description has not changed since the last plan. The field of architecture engages the physical environment through graphic representations and verbal texts. In architectural practice, clear communication is necessary to effectively communicate with clients, with those in the construction industry and with other architects. In academia, we value the rigorous use of graphics and text to grapple with architectural issues and problems. Professional writing proposes, describes and documents designs including:
• Responding to Requests for Proposals • Making competition drawings that include explanatory text • Writing letters to clients, contractors and others • Creating design documents that described buildings in drawings and text • Making specification documents describing materials and equipment • Writing articles and competition texts that describe completed projects in words and images
In academia critical thinking in architecture requires students to describe, analyze and interpret designed environments. This may take the form of:
• Journals or sketchbooks that include such things as field annotations, critical analysis and associations • Diagrams that describe design processes • Observation research and analysis of architectural precedents • Research analyses and literature searches • Essays and examinations • Oral and graphic presentations
In these different forms of graphic and textual writing, the creative process of design may be supported by:
• Linking observations and descriptions to reflection, analysis and interpretation • Diagramming and critiquing the design process • Identifying and evaluation alternative design propositions • Iterative investigations that employ different media
The purposes of such communication are very broad and in both professional and academic settings includes exploration of ideas, accurate documentation of situations, analysis of places and designs, expression of poetic ideas, and persuading others through argumentation and use of evidence. Taking into consideration all of these purposes, discussion with the architecture faculty about the definition of writing in architecture revealed strong agreement that incorporating both written and graphic texts is necessary for the discipline. However faculty found that the term writing seems to exclude graphics. Therefore, the following definition, created to support the WEC activities in architecture, employs the term communication. The following definition was created to support the WEC activities in architecture:
Communication is an articulation of thinking and can be used to define, describe, narrate, analyze, persuade, question and discover. Along with written essays and academic papers, writing in architecture can take the form of diagrams, drawings, collages, renderings, models, presentation boards and oral presentations.
6
Section 2: DESIRED WRITING ABILITIES **: With which writing abilities should students in this unit’s major(s) graduate? If this is a subsequent edition and changes have been made to this list, please highlight and explain the changes. This list has not changed since the last plan.
The faculty has approved the following set of criteria which is organized into five sections: Forming a topic
1. Forms a thesis or proposition as a statement that is open to investigation and debate
2. Generates, refines, and reforms questions related to the thesis or proposition
Description
3.
Searches broadly to locate sources that contain information relevant to the thesis or proposition
4.
Identifies evidence accurately and thoroughly -‐-‐-‐ whether verbal or visual
5. Evaluates, organizes, and assembles visual and verbal evidence into a hierarchy that explains their relative significance
Analysis and Interpretation 6. Constructs arguments that are substantiated with appropriate evidence
7. Leverages multiple perspectives to support complex arguments
8. Engages visual materials and verbal arguments in a dialogue that recognizes the autonomy of both lines of inquiry
9. Draws inferences from the argument(s) that lead to synthesis
Conclusion 10.
Concludes with a summary or interpretation of the argument that develops, promotes, or advances the original thesis
11. Discovers new ideas through the process of writing
Mechanics 12.
Uses language and style to persuasively address the target audience
13. Documents verbal and visual sources using consistent citation formats so that readers can locate original materials
7
Section 3: INTEGRATION OF WRITING INTO UNIT’S UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM: How is writing instruction currently positioned in this unit’s undergraduate curriculum (or curricula)? What, if any, structural plans does this unit have for changing the way that writing and writing instruction are sequenced across its course offerings? With what rationales are changes proposed and what indicators will signify their impact? If this is a subsequent edition and changes have been made, please highlight and explain the changes. This section of the plan is almost entirely changed There are two undergraduate programs in architecture: the BDA and the BS. The BS is a pre-‐professional program with a planned sequence of courses, while the BDA is a more flexible program providing more choice of courses for students. Although the sequence of the program courses has recently changed, the writing curriculum has essentially remained the same since we began our Writing Enriched Curriculum program. There continue to be three Writing Intensive courses in the architecture program curriculum (ARCH 3411, ARCH 3711 and ARCH 4701), of which one is required in both undergraduate programs. Since 2013 we have had two different Research Assistants work with us to support our efforts, Mitchell Hein and Annie Bearss. They have developed two websites and have helped with our fall and spring semester TA Workshops on teaching writing in architecture. The faculty has participated in three workshops based upon successful consultations with the RAs. The WEC work in architecture is coordinated through the WEC subcommittee, chaired by the WEC Liaison with faculty members and the WEC RA as members. This group makes recommendations to the faculty. Beginning in fall semester of 2014 the two undergraduate program directors have joined the WEC subcommittee to more directly support the writing curriculum as a central part of the undergraduate programs. The results of the summer 2014 rating were a great shock to the faculty. To this point, we had assumed that our increased awareness of the need for writing as a part of our teaching, our increased interest in teaching writing and in Faculty Workshops, and our provision of TA Workshops each semester would be sufficient to create the conditions for improved student writing and visual communication. Although there was some concern about the factors affecting of courses under review during the summer rating (the instructor and assignments changed from the first review to the second), generally faculty did not question the findings of lack of progress, since the ratings of both courses showed little or no improvement since the last rating. Faculty discussion of the rating results revealed several concerns about how the department approaches writing, and interest in coordination of our efforts across our courses, and a variety of suggestions for constructive change. Assessing the Curriculum One concern was the reliance on our Writing Intensive classes to carry the burden of teaching writing. At the beginning of our process we mapped our courses and will now return to the mapping for a more strategic approach to the writing curriculum, to reconsider which courses should be designated as Writing Intensive, and to see how we can use all of our courses together to make a stronger writing and communication curriculum. Additionally, faculty are concerned that we do not know which of our instruction practices generate effective learning. It would be very helpful to assess courses in more detail. We are, therefore requesting support for teaching consultations and for assessing class assignments and writing at the beginning and end of two to three courses once each year for two years to see which teaching approaches make a difference. We expect that this will allow us to identify those teaching practices that contribute most effectively to the writing/communication abilities of architecture students. The Role of Teaching Assistants Another concern was that a great deal of our teaching of writing takes place with instruction by Teaching Assistants. Although we can see that the Teaching Assistants’ instruction has improved with the institution of our TA Workshops each semester, and plan to continue that program, the lack of improvement in student writing indicates that is insufficient. We are concerned about the TA-‐student ratios. Our class size ratio for Writing Intensive courses has gone from 1:20 a few years ago to 1: 30 more recently. The faculty does not think that a TA can effectively review the writing of 30 students, and is asking the administration to reduce the ratio to 20-‐25. Additionally, we are planning to make sure that we assign as Teaching Assistant positions in Writing Intensive courses, students with strong skills in writing. Writing Assistants/ Service Assistance Additionally, one practice that has proven very effective for a small number of faculty is one-‐on-‐one sessions with our WEC
8
Research Assistant to work on integrating the writing criteria with such things as syllabus material, course rubrics and teaching methods. Because the previous RAs had many responsibilities, they were not able to work with very many faculty members in this way. We are, therefore requesting service assistance from the WEC staff for consultations with individual faculty members on integrating the writing criteria with such things as syllabus material, course rubrics, course assignments, course exercises and teaching methods. We are requesting 15 sessions each semester and will create a plan for individual faculty members to participate so that the services are effectively used. Developing Awareness and Changing Culture The culture of writing and communication needs to be developed in our program. Although the faculty sees writing and communication as essential to the critical thinking that is required in an architectural education, we need not only to communicate better among ourselves, but also to more effectively communicate the importance to our students. We will ask faculty to spend time each semester discussing the role of writing/visual communication with our students, and introducing them to their website. We will be working with our undergraduate Student Advisory Committees to engage with the writing criteria and revising our student website. Faculty awareness of writing and instructional techniques for writing also needs enhancing. We will continue to provide Faculty Workshops, and will promote the new consultations. The Directors of our two undergraduate programs have joined the WEC subcommittee and will play a central role in our curriculum review. We are also concerned to more specifically address visual communication and the ways to integrate visual and verbal communication, so that all courses will be participating, including courses that are not primarily writing based.
9
Section 4: ASSESSMENT of STUDENT WRITING: What concerns, if any, have unit faculty and undergraduate students voiced about grading practices? What, if any, new grading systems or practices are proposed, whether for individual courses or for a program? How satisfied is the unit faculty that students are adequately familiar with writing expectations? What do these expectations look like when they are translated into grading criteria? Please include a menu of criteria extrapolated from the list of Desired Writing Abilities provided in Section II of this plan. (This menu can be offered to faculty/instructors for selective adaptation and will function as a starting point in the WEC Project’s longitudinal rating process.). If this is a subsequent edition, please describe faculty reaction to the most recent report of triennial rating results and highlight changes made to the menu of criteria. The following criteria were used in the rating process. Criteria 1 through 5, and 11 are different from the original criteria. Raters found many of the criteria difficult to use and had a number of suggestions for improvement (2, 5a, 5b, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13), and had suggestions for additional criteria. The WEC subcommittee is planning to review the comments to see if the criteria need to be modified. Recommendations will be made to the faculty for discussion and possible improvement of the criteria. Forming a topic
1. Demonstrates the writer’s ability to form a thesis or proposition as a statement that is open to investigation and debate.
Forms a thesis or proposition as a statement that is open to investigation and debate
2. Develops through refinement and definition of questions related to the thesis or proposition.
Description
3.
Reflects the writer’s ability to search broadly and to locate diverse sources containing information relevant to the thesis or proposition
4.
Demonstrates the writer’s ability to employ evidence accurately and thoroughly —whether verbal or visual.
5a. Evaluates, organizes, and assembles visual and verbal evidence into a hierarchy that explains their relative significance
5b. Explains the relative significance of evidence.
Analysis and Interpretation 6. Constructs arguments that are substantiated with appropriate
evidence
7. Leverages multiple perspectives to support complex arguments
8. Engages visual materials and verbal arguments in a dialogue that recognizes the autonomy of both lines of inquiry
9. Draws inferences from the argument(s) that lead to synthesis
Conclusion 10.
Concludes with a summary or interpretation of the argument that develops, promotes, or advances the original thesis
11. Realizes new ideas through the process of writing.
Mechanics 12.
Uses language and style to persuasively address the target audience
13. Documents verbal and visual sources using consistent citation formats so that readers can locate original materials
10
In terms of grading practices, before the WEC initiative, the use of rubrics to assess student work was not a common practice in architecture. Since the institution of WEC, there has been no formal effort to require faculty to employ rubrics in the assessment of writing, but many faculty have done so, and faculty in Writing Intensive classes have adopted teaching rubrics that are aligned with the Writing Criteria. As Stated earlier, the faculty was very surprised that the Summer 2014 Ratings of student work did not show progress since the last rating. Nonetheless, we still strongly support the thirteen criteria that we developed earlier as an indication of what we would like students to be able to achieve. The architecture faculty is committed to effective teaching, but resistant to requirements made at a departmental level. Because there are many sub-‐disciplines within the field of architecture, such as history, technology, and urban design that have completely different disciplinary origins, the teaching methods and approaches are not consistent across courses. Therefore it is important to work with faculty as individuals rather than to assume we are a uniform group. Thus the new plan requests consultations for individual faculty. The directors of the undergraduate programs will work together to identify courses that will benefit from new approaches, and will program and encourage faculty to take advantage of the consultations. In addition to the consultations, we are piloting the assessment of individual courses to ask “What is the effect of various teaching techniques on student writing?” The assessments will recur annually for two or three years. Assuming that the first semester pilot was successful, we will add one or two strategic courses. The details of this process are described in Section 5. At this time only a few faculty are working with the websites. We need to publicize both websites better and to expand usefulness of the instructor’s site by adding such things as course exercises. In terms of communication to students, the directors of the BS and BDA programs each have Student Advisory Boards that we will use to help us with publicity and development of the students website.
11
Section 5: SUMMARY of IMPLEMENTATION PLANS and REQUESTED SUPPORT: Based on above discussions, what does the unit plan to implement during the period covered by this plan? What forms of instructional support does this unit request to help implement proposed changes? What are the expected outcomes of named support?
If this is a subsequent edition, please comment on previously implemented activity and its assessment prior to describing new plans. Implemented Activity Our last plan included the continuation of TA Workshops, which the faculty is very pleased with. Teaching assistants who attend the workshops are much better prepared to coach and grade student writers than the other TAs. TAs are now required to attend, and future workshops will be better timed to increase graduate student attendance. We also implemented Faculty Workshops in 2013 and 2014. These are important to keep reminding faculty of the WEC values, and to provide new implementation ideas. We would like to continue to provide these once or twice a year. We were fortunate to receive support for WEC Teaching Assistants who helped with special tasks such as mapping our curriculum, creating websites, assisting with TA and Faculty Workshops, and working with individual faculty on their courses. We are building on this work. The maps are the basis for developing our strategic plan to integrate all courses in teaching faculty. The websites that the TAs developed, online since Fall 2014, have been improved once. The Rating of capstone material was completed in summer 2014. Since we do not have capstone courses in our programs, we are continuing to review which courses should be used to assess outgoing student writing/ visual communication. Proposed Activity We are developing a strategic plan of action to improve writing/ visual communication that will involve all undergraduate courses based on, and updating our original course mapping. This work will be undertaken by the WEC Subcommittee that now includes the Directors of the BS and BDA programs as well as the key undergraduate faculty members who participated previously. As a part of this plan we will continue to work with our faculty to align courses with the WEC Writing Criteria developed by the department. We will hold Faculty Workshops. We also will engage in a plan for faculty to work with consultants at the Center for Writing to improve writing through better teaching methods, syllabus material and such applications as assignments, and rubrics. Another part of the instructional plan will involve the assessment of writing and course assignments in individual courses to identify effective and less effective practices in one to three courses. We will evaluate these measures by assessing the number of faculty members who take advantage of these opportunities. We will remain committed to providing TA Workshops each semester and to having a high rate of participation. Also we will work toward having a TA ratio of 1:20 or 1:25 in all Writing Intensive courses. The Faculty and Student websites will continue to be promoted and improved. Without a WEC RA, maintenance of the website will now fall to the WEC subcommittee. We will work with the Undergraduate Student Advisory Boards to publicize and update the Writing Resources for Students website. The effectiveness of the websites will be evaluated by their use. Forms of Instructional Support The School of Architecture is requesting two types of support, support for individual faculty consulting, and support for assessment of individual courses. The individual faculty consultation is designed to help faculty members to improve their teaching of writing/ visual communication. We anticipate that individual faculty members will report to the faculty on their work in the Faculty Workshops that we will organize with the consultants. Annual presentation of this faculty work will stimulate the continued interest and activity of faculty. Course assessment addresses faculty frustration at the recent ratings, especially those who have been instituting instructional methods intended to improve learning outcomes. In order to identify effective practices, several faculty would like to assess student’s work and assignments at the beginning and end of their course for two or three years. Completing each assessment would involve three phases: designing the rating, creating an assessment protocol and reporting the findings. The process would be piloted with one course the first semester, with assessments taking place again the two following years. Subsequently, one
12
or two courses would be added and, depending on the semester of the first assessment would be assessed again in one or two following years. Research Assistants would be assigned to aid the process under the supervision of faculty and WEC staff. Funds are requested for compensating raters and for RA time. Service time for WEC staff is requested for participation all three phases of the ratings. Designing the Rating
• Consultation between the faculty member and WEC staff prior to the assessment to select Writing Criteria to focus on, to identify what types of instruction will be employed, and to identify assignments to assess at the beginning and the end of the course.
• Acquisition of student consent for collection of assignments • Collection of assignment samples and removal of identifications at the beginning and end of the course (RA)
Creating assessment protocol • Use de-‐identified samples (RA) • Appoint three raters (not the instructor) • Mix early and late samples (RA) • Conduct an initial norming session to assure confidence and consistency • Conduct rating session without discussion • Conduct a rater debriefing session • Compensate raters
Reporting the Findings • Analyze the findings (RA & WEC Staff) • Written report for the individual faculty member (RA & WEC Staff) • Discussion between WEC staff member and the faculty member • Report to the whole faculty for discussion, perhaps combining all course assessments
Section 6: PROCESS USED TO CREATE THIS WRITING PLAN: How, and to what degree, were stakeholders in this unit (faculty members, instructors, affiliates, teaching assistants, undergraduates, others) engaged in providing, revising, and approving the content of this Writing Plan?
This plan was generated based on discussions with the Tenured and Tenure-‐Track faculty as well as our full time P&A faculty. Great care was taken in the presentation of the summer ratings because the attention of the faculty needed to be on the findings themselves rather than the individual faculty members whose student work was assessed. For this reason the Liaison held meetings with our Writing Consultant, the Department Head, the Directors of Undergraduate programs and the WEC subcommittee during the fall semester to prepare the presentation As a result, the meeting at which the findings were presented focused on what the faculty could do to improve writing instruction in our program. Input from students and teaching assistants was indirect, identified through faculty in attendance at the meeting. There was a thoughtful discussion by all faculty members present and many ideas were put forward. The WEC subcommittee met afterwards to create the plan. And after discussions with Writing Consultants this plan was generated. It was approved at a subsequent.
13
IV. Writing Plan Narrative Section 7: Briefly, please describe the ways that the ideas contained in this Undergraduate Writing Plan address the University's Student Learning Outcomes (http://www.slo.umn.edu).
The School of Architecture has chosen to focus on four Student Learning Outcomes. • SLO #1: Students can identify, define, and solve problems. • SLO #2: Students can locate and critically evaluate information. • SLO #3: Students understand diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies. • SLO #4: Students can communicate effectively.
Each of these has parallel ideas represented in our Writing Criteria. The structure of our writing criteria addresses both SLO #1: Students can identify, define, and solve problems, and SLO #4: Students can communicate effectively. This structure consists of five parts and represents the iterative process that solves an architectural problem, the effective communication of an argument supporting the solution and the citation of sources: (A) Forming a Topic, (B) Description and organization of the evidence, (C) Analysis & Interpretation of the evidence, (D) Analysis and Interpretation of the evidence, and (E) Conclusion as well as (F) Mechanics. Several Writing Criteria address SLO #2: Students can locate and critically evaluate information: 3 (Leverages multiple perspectives to support complex arguments), 4 (Identifies evidence accurately and thoroughly whether verbal or visual), 5 (Evaluates, organizes, and assembles visual and verbal evidence into a hierarchy that explains their relative significance), 9 (Draws inferences from the argument(s) that lead to synthesis) and 10 (Concludes with a summary or interpretation of the argument that develops, promotes, or advances the original thesis) Writing Criterion 7 (“Leverages multiple perspectives to support complex arguments”) addresses SLO #3: Students understand diverse philosophies and cultures within and across societies. The College of Design is also involved in this effort. Through the College we will be assessing these SLOs via a two-‐pronged approach. First, these four SLOs will be assessed via individual assignments and projects, which will be incorporated into an Annual Progress Report that is sent to the Office for Undergraduate Education. Second, we are engaging in an SLO survey pilot in the College of Design. For that pilot, students in every college course fill out a survey that asks them the extent to which they feel they achieved each of the SLOs in a particular course. The course instructor also fills out a survey that identifies which of the SLOs they meant to focus on in their course. We will analyze the data garnered via both of these approaches, paying specific attention to SLOs #1, #2, #3, and #4, to explore the effectiveness of the Undergraduate Writing Plan in facilitating student achievement of the SLOs.
4
Architecture curriculum mAppingFAll 2011 - Spring 2012
EMPH
ASI
S PL
AC
ED O
N C
OM
MUN
ICA
TION
ABI
LITIE
S IN
THE
UNDE
RGRA
DUA
TE A
RCHI
TEC
TURE
CUR
RIC
ULUM
CO
URSE
INFO
RMA
TION
AN
ALY
SIS
12
34
56
7
Fall
Sprin
gA
RCH
1701
ARC
H 12
81A
RCH
2301
ARC
H 34
11A
RCH
3711
ARC
H 22
81A
RCH
3412
ARC
H 36
11LA
350
1A
RCH
4511
1A
RCH
4701
ARC
H 32
821
ARC
H 45
211
ARC
H 45
61A
RCH
4571
1
Form
s a th
esis
as a
stat
emen
t th
at is
ope
n to
inve
stig
atio
n an
d d
ebat
e3
31
56
14
34
25
34
31
3
Gen
erat
es, r
efin
es, a
nd
refo
rms q
uest
ions
rela
ted
to
the
thes
is2
32
45
42
34
22
22
31
2
Sear
ches
bro
adly
to lo
cate
so
urce
s tha
t con
tain
in
form
atio
n re
leva
nt to
the
thes
is
32
12
21
75
25
34
25
12
Iden
tifie
s evi
den
ce
accu
rate
ly a
nd th
orou
ghly
- w
heth
er v
erba
l or v
isual
34
73
51
64
56
64
66
75
Eval
uate
s, or
gani
zes,
and
as
sem
bles
visu
al a
nd v
erba
l ev
iden
ce in
to a
hie
rarc
hy
that
exp
lain
s the
ir re
lativ
e sig
nific
ance
.
33
54
44
42
33
66
55
54
Con
stru
cts a
rgum
ents
that
ar
e su
bsta
ntia
ted
with
ap
prop
riate
evi
den
ce4
22
67
13
22
47
34
44
4
Leve
rage
s mul
tiple
pe
rspe
ctiv
es to
supp
ort
com
plex
arg
umen
ts6
44
36
11
13
12
11
11
1
Enga
ges v
isual
mat
eria
ls an
d
verb
al a
rgum
ents
in a
d
ialo
gue
that
reco
gnize
s the
au
tono
my
of b
oth
lines
of
inqu
iry
42
11
43
32
55
74
27
13
Dra
ws i
nfer
ence
s fro
m th
e ar
gum
ent(
s) th
at le
ad to
sy
nthe
sis4
51
16
12
15
42
45
33
3
Con
clud
es w
ith a
sum
mar
y or
in
terp
reta
tion
of th
e ar
gum
ent t
hat d
evel
ops,
prom
otes
, or a
dva
nces
the
orig
inal
thes
is
32
11
31
12
22
54
43
32
Disc
over
s new
idea
s thr
ough
th
e pr
oces
s of w
ritin
g1
56
15
74
23
43
74
45
4
Uses
lang
uage
and
styl
e to
pe
rsua
sivel
y ad
dre
ss th
e ta
rget
aud
ienc
e3
35
35
61
22
14
64
31
3
Doc
umen
ts v
erba
l and
visu
al
sour
ces u
sing
cons
isten
t ci
tatio
n fo
rmat
s so
that
re
ader
s can
loca
te o
rigin
al
mat
eria
ls
51
11
51
63
11
61
12
11
Des
ign
stud
io o
r wor
ksho
p
1O
nly
requ
ired
for B
S st
uden
ts
MECHANICS
Writ
ing
Abi
litie
s
Year
One
Year
Two
Year
Thre
eFa
llSp
ring
Fall
Sprin
g
FORMING A TOPIC DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS + INTERPRETATN CONCLUSION
How
stro
ngly
em
phas
ized
is th
is ab
ility
, on
a sc
ale
of 1
-7, a
ccor
ding
to th
e co
urse
info
rmat
ion
(syl
labu
s, a
ssig
nmen
t she
ets,
rubr
ics)
?(c
ours
e in
form
atio
n pr
ovid
ed b
y co
urse
inst
ruct
ors
and
anal
yzed
by
WEC
rese
arch
ass
istan
t)
Ave
rage
(med
ian)
Year
Fou
rFa
ll
VI. W
EC W
riting Plan
Req
uests
Unit N
ame:
$9,400.00
Semester 1
:Semester 2
:Semester 3
:Semester 4
:Semester 5
:Semester 6
:Ite
mCo
stIte
mCo
stIte
mCo
stIte
mCo
stIte
mCo
stIte
mCo
st
Semester 1
Total:
$1,100.00
Semester 2
Total:
$1,100.00
Semester 3
Total:
$2,200.00
Semester 4
Total:
$1,400.00
Semester 5
Total:
$2,200.00
Semester 6
Total:
$1,400.00
Ratio
nale fo
r costs and
their sched
ule of distribution
Semester 1
:Semester 2
:Semester 3
:Semester 4
:Semester 5
:Semester 6
:Service
Qty
Service
Qty
Service
Qty
Service
Qty
Service
Qty
Service
Qty
Consultatio
n10
Consultatio
n11
Consultatio
n10
Consultatio
n10
Consultatio
n10
Consultatio
n10
Other
1Other
1Other
2Other
1Other
2Other
1Worksho
p1
Worksho
p1
Worksho
p1
Total Finan
cial Req
uest:
$300.00
$600.00
$1,600.00
Descrip
tion an
d ratio
nale fo
r services
Fina
ncial R
eque
sts (
requ
ests can
not include
faculty
salary su
pport) drop-‐do
wn choices w
ill app
ear w
hen cell next to
"sem
ester"is selected
Service Re
quests dr
op-‐dow
n choices w
ill app
ear w
hen a cell in th
e "service" c
olum
n is selected
1. Con
sulta
tions-‐Because architecture faculty
com
e from
diverse su
bdisc
iplines, each with
its o
wn teaching m
etho
ds, w
e are requ
estin
g individu
al faculty
con
sulta
tions
as th
e be
st app
roach to im
prove teaching and
learning outcomes. 2. O
ther-‐ A
ddition
ally we are requ
estin
g consultatio
ns fo
r the
assessm
ents of cou
rses to
iden
tify
effective metho
ds of teaching writing and visual com
mun
ication in architecture. The
se asssessmen
ts will be of stud
ent w
ork and the related assig
nmen
ts at the
be
ginn
ing of th
e course and
at the
end
. 3. W
e are also re
questin
g service supp
ort for an annu
al faculty
worksho
p every sprin
g. This w
ould brin
g to th
e faculty
ideas
and activ
ities re
lated to th
e curricular changes and
find
ings from
the curren
t year.
The requ
est sup
ports three cou
rses, two assessed
three tim
es and
one
assessed tw
ice. For each assessmen
t 3 ra
ters wou
ld be compe
nsated
at $
100 and an RA wou
ld
be com
pensated
for u
p to 20 ho
urs o
f work supp
ortin
g the ratin
g.
Rater com
pensation
1 Re
search Assistant (20
hou
rs @
$2
0= $40
0; plus $
400 fringe)
$300.00
$800.001 Re
search Assistant (20
hou
rs @
$20
= $400; p
lus $
400 fringe)
Rater com
pensation
Rater com
pensation
2 Re
search Assistants 20 ho
urs @
$20
= $400; p
lus $
400 fringe)
$800.00
Rater com
pensation
$600.00
$800.00
Rater com
pensation
2 Re
search Assistant (20
hou
rs @
$20
= $400; p
lus $
400 fringe)
1 Re
search Assistant (20
hou
rs @
$20
= $400; p
lus $
400 fringe)
Rater com
pensation
1 Re
search Assistant (20
hou
rs @
$2
0= $40
0; plus $
400 fringe)
$600.00
$1,600.00
$600.00
$800.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Campus Writing Board
April 13, 2015
Julia Robinson
Architecture
Dear Professor Robinson,
I write to let you know that the Campus Writing Board (CWB) recently discussed and
approved the Writing Plan submitted by you on behalf of the Department of Architecture.
The decision whether to fund the project and at what level rests with the Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Education, who has received the recommendation from the Campus
Writing Board and will notify you soon about funding.
Sincerely,
Katie Russell
Staff, Campus Writing Board
612-624-6040
CC: Molly Bendzick, Will Durfee, Dan Emery, Pamela Flash, Leslie Schiff, Steven
Wandler
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Office of Undergraduate Education
April 14, 2015
To: Julia Robinson, Architecture
From: Robert McMaster, Office of Undergraduate Education
Subject: Decision regarding WEC funding proposal
The Department of Architecture recently requested the following funding to support its Writing
Enriched Curriculum:
Summer 2015 Rater compensation $ 300.00
Summer 2015 1 Research Assistant (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 800.00
Fall 2015 Rater compensation $ 300.00
Fall 2015 1 Research Assistant (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 800.00
Spring 2016 Rater compensation $ 600.00
Spring 2016 2 Research Assistants (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 1,600.00
Summer 2016 Rater compensation $ 600.00
Summer 2016 1 Research Assistant (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 800.00
Fall 2016 Rater compensation $ 600.00
Fall 2016 2 Research Assistants (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 1,600.00
Spring 2017 Rater compensation $ 600.00
Spring 2017 1 Research Assistant (20 hours @ $20=$400 plus $400 fringe)
$ 800.00
TOTAL REQUEST $ 9,400.00
All items above have been approved by the Office of Undergraduate Education, for a total of
$9,400. Please provide Pat Ferrian ([email protected]) with your department’s EFS information
within 30 days of the receipt of this letter so the funds may be transferred.
Please note, the requested rater and RA funding for 2016-2017 assumes the success of the 2015
intra-course assessment pilot. In the unlikely chance that the rating pilot is unsuccessful and the
ensuing iterations are canceled, you will need to recalculate your budget.
Also, your requested RA funding is appropriate for a non-ABD graduate student. If you hire a
post-ABD candidate, you will need to recalculate your budget.
CC: Suzanne Bardouche, Molly Bendzick, Will Durfee, Dan Emery, Pat Ferrian, Pamela
Flash, Leslie Schiff, Steve Wandler, Martha McDonell
