Chairs, Deans, and Coordinators
I suppose I need to put together some thoughts regarding the deans, chairs, and coordinators meeting tomorrow morning. Winnie has kept a fairly tight lip regarding what Paul is expecting us to present at this meeting. From what Paul has said previously, it seems we are to answer this question: of what benefit is The St. Martin's Handbook to faculty across the curriculum?
My initial ideas are primarily big-picture thinking, not specifically about this book. because, honestly, it's not this text so much as it is the idea of adopting a writing handbook for the entire college. Make no mistake, I think this is a good handbook, which is why the department adopted it over many others in the first place, but, for me, the message being sent to faculty across the curriculum is the bigger advantage, and that is that writing is important, and we are all in this together in terms of teaching students to write well.
For me, the advantages of adopting a handbook are many. First of all, in order for writing across the curriculum to develop, grow, and be successful, it must be a grassroots movement. One of the greatest successes of the WFG is Larry Gilbert's getting on the writing bandwagon and making changes to his own program, organic and from the inside. Adopting a handbook such as this one allows us a faculty to begin the sorts of conversations needed to foster this sort of grassroots growth, and, additionally, begin to develop shared standards and criteria for writing. The development of the WFG rubric is one step in this direction. With it, we laid out some very basic criteria for grading writing, and even this has spurred conversations across disciplines regarding grading standards, but this is not enough. The rubric is designed to be general enough to apply to all writing across all disciplines. Probably, for use within specific disciplines or departments, a more tailored rubric should be developed that addresses the concerns of that constintuent, and the SMG allows for that and can help people in other disciplines to formulate such rubrics.
The SMG also will help to develop a common language for grading writing across disciplines. I am quite certain students are often confused moving from one teacher to another regarding what standards are applied to their writing, even though, each may be addressing the same concern or deficiency. Even with grammar, what I call a run-on, another may coin a fused sentence. We need a core of common language to present to students and the widespread use of the SMG, I think, will begin to develop this core, shared language for the assessment of writing.
In terms of the SMG specifically, it is a process oriented text. For many, writing is a product, and this attitude is probably the first that needs to change of writing is to explode as a concern across the curriculum because if we want to effect significant change in the product, we need to begin with the process that went into the creation of that product, and the SMG's focus on writing as process may help to shift this focus somewhat.
My initial ideas are primarily big-picture thinking, not specifically about this book. because, honestly, it's not this text so much as it is the idea of adopting a writing handbook for the entire college. Make no mistake, I think this is a good handbook, which is why the department adopted it over many others in the first place, but, for me, the message being sent to faculty across the curriculum is the bigger advantage, and that is that writing is important, and we are all in this together in terms of teaching students to write well.
For me, the advantages of adopting a handbook are many. First of all, in order for writing across the curriculum to develop, grow, and be successful, it must be a grassroots movement. One of the greatest successes of the WFG is Larry Gilbert's getting on the writing bandwagon and making changes to his own program, organic and from the inside. Adopting a handbook such as this one allows us a faculty to begin the sorts of conversations needed to foster this sort of grassroots growth, and, additionally, begin to develop shared standards and criteria for writing. The development of the WFG rubric is one step in this direction. With it, we laid out some very basic criteria for grading writing, and even this has spurred conversations across disciplines regarding grading standards, but this is not enough. The rubric is designed to be general enough to apply to all writing across all disciplines. Probably, for use within specific disciplines or departments, a more tailored rubric should be developed that addresses the concerns of that constintuent, and the SMG allows for that and can help people in other disciplines to formulate such rubrics.
The SMG also will help to develop a common language for grading writing across disciplines. I am quite certain students are often confused moving from one teacher to another regarding what standards are applied to their writing, even though, each may be addressing the same concern or deficiency. Even with grammar, what I call a run-on, another may coin a fused sentence. We need a core of common language to present to students and the widespread use of the SMG, I think, will begin to develop this core, shared language for the assessment of writing.
In terms of the SMG specifically, it is a process oriented text. For many, writing is a product, and this attitude is probably the first that needs to change of writing is to explode as a concern across the curriculum because if we want to effect significant change in the product, we need to begin with the process that went into the creation of that product, and the SMG's focus on writing as process may help to shift this focus somewhat.
posted by CA Lund at 6:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home