My notes from 2010 ACRL Webcast on Interactive IL Tutorials

October 18th – live. This webcast is being recorded for anyone who wants to watch later. Presenter = Cinthya Ippoliti.
cinthya.ippoliti@pymail.caricopa.edu

1. navigation- how many times to try action before getting concept (browser interruption and no sound. Discussion from whiteboard: learning is scary, change is difficult, navigation isn’t always obvious, user inexperience, anxious, lack of confidence.

2. about half of audience has experience creating tutorials

3. challenges we have encountered (whiteboard): marketing, time, committee agreement about what to cover in tutorial, content, what to include

4. Where to start? they had a subcommittee (about 5 people) that met to determine the elements of the tutorial, so they did a needs assessment survey of faculty and students. They ended up working on adapting the TILT tutorial. The needs assessment showed that faculty want info on accessing info and evaluating info with some wanting students to know how to define info need and use info ethically/legally. Interactivity and ease of use were the features they thought most important. Students were interested in where to look for info and how to find reliable info (90%). 74% said they would use the tool on their own without prompting.

5. 2-year process. used html, flash cs3/cs5 and action script 2.0 and some xml. (campus needs to understand may be $ involved and a learning curve for the person learning how to use the new technology…so how committed is the institution to creating this tool?).\

6. lessons learned – things don’t always work better by committee and don’t be afraid to ask for assistance. Collaboration = great, but don’t always need that when in creation process. wanted something basic, no bells and whistles, more of a “classic” rather than something that would have dated technology

7. most literature came from IT and education sectors. Interactive meant something different to everyone (i.e., text-based, home-grown and maintained, do not allow for free user input, linear). Many were “click on a page of text, read it, and that’s how you’ll learn”. This was what not to do.

8. dome element of free-form navigation, varying levels of difficulty, facilitate the acquisition and use of strategies, encourage and develop inductive learning (here’s a specific thing but here’s how you can apply it to a broader set of concepts), help is provided, but the answer is not given. In addition (these are a little more advanced because they are course related and branching)- it should give ed objectives, course/assignment related functions branching capabilities, problem based, concept based elements, assessment and feedback

9. whiteboard comments ensued. Here is her definition: present the content in a visual manner that allows stus to directly interact with the material even then simply reading text- whether  it consists of a rollover, drag and drop or clicking. stus doing something throughout the entire tutorial-they have to be engaged in order to use it.

10.what content to include? Four areas of IL. How to conceptualize these abstract ideas? (how do you make it concrete?)  How to boil them down to their core elements? (the ACRL standards complex and thorough like our Oregon proficiencies- but how do you boil it down? Less is more! Get away from the idea that they have to learn everything. Use self monitoring to make sure content is as streamlined as possible.

11. Process.
A. came up with raw content (storyboarding) page by page and each page had a set of objectives (brainstorming phase- not all objectives ended up in the final product).
B. Finished product comparison (text and then what it actually ended up looking like- link is in webcast recording). (My note: Approach examples were narrative, causal analysis, compare/contrast or argument to fit with their writing assignments). go to http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/researchhelp/swfs/selecttopic.swf

(my note- yesterday’s activity of watching a class take a tutorial)

12. every module has forward/back buttons on each page. flash opens up in own window- starts off as a website, icons maintain look and feel throughout. What to make interactive? every module has interactivity depending on the content covered- e.g., picking a topic does not require students to do anything, but recognizing how to narrow or broaden a topic was s perfect chance for them to practice with drag and drop activity.

13. each module designed as a stand alone. 4 modules = getting started, finding resources, evaluate info, plagiarism 101.

14. used food analogy to show boolean (and/or/not) and then a menu drag and drop activity

15. without a server, no long-term data and relying on students to print out results. Pre and post quizzes allowed flexibility for classroom use. stus can go back and review and they get immediate feedback on every answer. Note- doesn’t give answer if stu chooses wrong, just gives a hint (best practice note). Note- because no database, can’t force student into the appropriate module, can only strongly recommend a next step based on the quiz results. Another note- tutorial specific to Maricopa catalog and library. Note- uses Camtasia for quick video tutorial imbedded.

17. at the end of the tutorial there is an option to email the librarian at their school and get more help finding resources on their topic. My question- what is the relationship among the partner schools? Note- Robin had a different impression of the research cited in reference to number of students tested.

18. started in fall of 2009, had students complete a series of tasks (so did complex task observation) and talk  while working through the tutorial (“I’m thinking of clicking here…”etc). Did a demographic questionnaire and a post-test questionnaire. Welcomed and assured that they were not being tested. Complex tasks = where would you click in order to go to the first module of the tutorial? where would you click in order to begin taking the pre-quiz?…etc (see all questions in webcast). Then post-questionnaire to gauge how easy to use (informative? directions clear? feedback? where would it be most helpful – library page/error screen…etc?.

They said informative and clear. wanted more feedback. look was ok. responses varied in terms of using as a stand-alone tool. overall, ease of use and modular content were the best features.

19. stus cared about quiz scores almost as much as completing the assigned task. they wanted feedback on the pre-quiz as much as on the post-quiz. spell everything out- color matters (stus will try to click on text that looks like it might be hyperlinked even if it is not). Screen size is an issue- many student did not realize they had to scroll to get to the information located further down the page (so they tried to limit info so there was little or no scrolling required)

20. results- most students needed assistance with evaluating info so they only covered that content in the review. My note- librarian said “you guys don’t know how to evaluate information” then students more engaged and trying to score 100%. hmmm.  reported that it got away from students who felt they had already “had the library presentation.” Interesting- use in conjunction with face-2-face instruction. My note- ask students to take test and email results to me before f2f meeting.

21. they would love to have a database behind the tutorial so they can track student progress longitudinally.

22. from Educational Context slide- ”commitment from one college to dedicate resources and time” = my question- look into college partnerships.

23. note- chose not to have much audio because “distracting”

24. student testers made it clear they wouldn’t use tutorial unless incorporated into the course and had a grading component or was in some way required. So, if not stand alone, then could concentrate on creating a tool that tests student learning.

25. look at Planning Handout slides at end of webcast

26. Link to tutorial http://www.maricopa.edu/researchhelp/ and the powerpoint slides are available with the recording of the session.

END WEBCAST

Our discussion: how useful to have in person or should they just send out the url.

Degree Qualifications Profile, Oregon Common Core- overview and concerns

Notes from Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee (OWEAC) conversation about the Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP): http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf

• The Lumina Group is promoting the Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) as a tool for describing what learning behavior in a degree area looks like
• 18 community colleges nation wide have applied for grants to implement the DQP
• In some respects the DQP is less prescriptive than the Common Core Standards and as such may be less scary (i.e., it doesn’t lend itself as easily to prepackaged curricula and standardized tests)
• Main concern regarding the DQP is that it does not include an analysis of a student’s socio-economic status (SES) and to be meaningful in a holistic way, the DQP must include an analysis of SES and must include something that attends to early literacy practices. In other words, it isn’t enough to say “this student doesn’t know how to write a complete sentence, so we will just teach them that and then the 5 paragraph essay and then the research paper….etc.” While we applaud the idea of meeting a student where he or she is at the moment, it oversimplifies a very complex educational process into something that is standardized for everyone without regard to the context of actual student lives. Was the student raised in a home with books? Was the student read to as a child? What kinds of literacy experiences has the student had in and out of school? What social and economic factors have played a role in shaping the student and that student’s ability to learn?
• On page 3 of the DQP is a list of 5 descriptions of what the DQP will enable… in OWEAC we discussed that items 1, 2, and 4 on that list seem reasonable, but there is concern about items 3 and 5 (note that the list is not numbered on the document- these are my numbers). 3 and 5 raise concerns because they imply the DQP’s role in driving methodology  and taking what is a complex organism and turning it into a data set.
• It may be useful to map the DQP onto the Common Core. Mapping it lets us articulate what we’re doing and how effective we are. Assessment and reporting should just be a mirror to what we’re already doing and how successful we are. These kinds of tools need to be used with a healthy understanding that the most complex proficiencies- that is the things we care about most (e.g., habits of mind), are extremely hard to articulate. By necessity, when they are reduced to state-able, assessable outcome statements- they lose those most complex and sophisticated elements
• We do not endorse spreading the faulty belief that you can mediate years of literacy deficiency in one or two terms…the idea that in a term or two you can just “teach someone how to write and then they know forever”

Notes about the Common Core:
See: Common Core Fact Sheet includes information about assessment plans and
Oregon Department of Education info on Common Core

Information Literacy is woven throughout the Common Core Standards (this is good!!)

• In a recent OEA article (I gave my copy to Natalie), it talks about Oregon taking the approach of focusing deeply on a few outcomes rather than shallowly on a plethora of outcomes…in the article they say Oregon wants to go an inch wide and a mile deep with the most import outcomes….and Information Literacy is very present with in that “inch” …so it deserves deep exploration and support within the Common Core Curriculum
• So…very important talking point…do our representatives understand -
  • What information literacy is?
  • Which Common Core Standards are information literacy skills?
  • That information literacy is the purview of the library (i.e., that the library is not just “the temple of the book”)
  • That the library has curricular body and is actively engaged in scholarship around the teaching and learning of information literacy skills at all levels
  • While very pleased to see information literacy so prominent in the Common Core, concerns expressed at OWEAC include
    • Some of the standards seem very basic while others seem wildly optimistic
    • As above, the concern that socio-economic  status (SES) and literacy context aren’t attended to in a meaningful way
    • The role of the Common Core as an articulation document is useful, but not as a document driving methodology (i.e., value as a mapping and articulation tool, but should not be interpreted to mean let’s all teach to a standardized test)

Library and English Programs Assessment Update

The Library Program and English Program are working together to assess shared outcomes. We have several things underway:

• creating of a tutorial on the ethical use of information (how to incorporate sources without plagiarism…status = in process, next step = meet with Eva to review content enhancements)
• developing pre and post quiz to go with ethical use tutorial (draft quizzes are prepared in respondus, may be imported into eLearn, still refining questions and methods of collection…status = in process, next steps include reworking questions to match our interest areas and the tutorial content, working with the Hub on obtions for collecting and aggregating quiz data, consider coding questions, long term = create question test bank?)
• Michele to work with Dororthy on connecting ethical use tutorial and quizzes to program level assessment
• review of student WR121 final papers to look at proficiency in finding, evaluating, and selecting resources (collecting papers from instructors who participated in the pilot, looking at collected papers against draft rubrics and fine-tuning rubric as needed…status = in process, next steps= Michele and Theresa continue to read essays and tweak rubric, share rubric with Eng Program for input and further revision, share rubric widely with Eng Program including CCN, Online, Part-time)

In the process of testing and tweaking the rubric, Theresa and I are recording our findings and ‘Aha!’ moments regarding student work, gaps, needs, and our instruction. The process is enlightening and we have already noted areas where we can adjust library instruction to help students (particularly in the area of evaluation and discussing bias).  Necessary to spend time just reading to get oriented to the student writing population and get a feel for normal as opposed to an extreme on either end of a proficiency continuum.

OWEAC Mtg May 2011, U of O

(massively abbreviated notes from spring OWEAC meeting at UO)

Introductions and updates

• Various efforts to recruit international students (some concern about lack of infrastructure to support these student groups)
• WR 121 gate keeping class
• New Dev Ed Director at Umpqua interested in a Writing Center
• Linn Benton looking at integrating research and looking at the writing program as providing a service to other depts

Assessment comments

• UO getting great feedback on program assessment
• PCC looking for person to work across campuses on assessment
• Recommendation from Eva that OWEAC form assessment subcommittee to compile info around what institutions are doing around assessment (Michele, Siskanna, Eva, Jillanne, Nancy = assessment committee)
• Lane is moving forward with assessment- collecting artifacts and will start looking at them next fall
• Comment that final student papers sometimes show less proficiency than earlie papers because student is trying to do something more sophisticated than they did at the beginning…consider- how do  Outcomes reduce complexity 

Grad Programs

• Recommendation that 4-year schools add tech writing to curriculum
• Recommendation that MFA students take rhetoric and comp theory to be competetive for teaching positions
• Also need people graduates who can teach ESL
• Also need people graduates who can teach online
• OSU looking at reviving their MS in scientific and technical communication. One course might be 519 – training people to teach technical writing…also adding many technical science masters grads who need work. Sara also mentions their classes on how to teach online. At OSU, there is no more english department, they are now the department of writing, literature, and film
• “mind your ethos” comment 

WR 115 Description…an introduction to academic inquiry with the assumption that academic inquirey means putting students in conversation with scholarly sources. WR 115 solves different issues/problems for different schools; it needs to remain college level/credit and schools need the autonomy to use it for different things.

Citation Project- Rebecca Moore Howard’s research looked at 167 wr123 papers and categorized the in-text citations into 4 categories (no quotation marks, quotation, paraphrase, summary…summary is the best).  graph and berkenstien book because it discusses why they might want to understand something thoroughly because they might want to participate in the conversation more completely).

Summer Institute: Kate and Nancy keep touching base about the professional development summer workshop idea

Lunch (Michele almost gets run over by skateboarder while gawking at college life…sunbathing in May?…falafel at Caspian with with Jen and Jillanne…narrowly avoid getting hit by another skateboarder- are they drawn to my cardigan and sensible shoes?…walk through graveyard with Jen and Caroline)

JBAC meeting report 

• ATLAS (articulation and transfer program that would allow students a seamless way to transfer between different institutions)
•  Talked about ASOT business and alignment with AAOT
• JBAC going for a Lumina grant at Lane (privately funded, interested in degree completion). Corporate partnering with AACNU so EOU was a beta …Lumina foundation also concerned with how we are able to create pathways for underprepared students
•  Dialogue has been moved away from JBAC and is now taking place at CIA. 
• Dialogue happening at OUS regarding placement standards
• Question: who is our CCWD rep 

 For fall- OWEAC mission, role, voice

Qualitative Research (notes from 2011 OLA session)

OSU session on Qualitative research by Uta, Hannah, Margaret.
(These are my messy notes, find official session notes on NW Central)

Qualitative Research = Relating to quality in descriptive ways. Field notes, recordings, observations, and turning them into something that gets at the context or quality of what is happening. Generates a large amount of detail that might be hard to generalize.

How to generate in library? Focus groups, personal interviews, surveys (open response) observations studies photo diaries.

Best practices. Trying to get at things not easily captured or best for observations not easily reduced to numbers. Probe aspects of a particular issue. Generate questions for a subsequent survey. Generalizable? Be careful about that. Difficulty- that’s why so much research is quantitative.

Survey (quantitative) but go from numbers to nuance and more richness…survey with open ended questions, focus groups, and interview (one on one, long term)….what do they mean by long term?

How to turn research into reality. Gather the data, but then what do you do with it? How to take the next step and make changes based on what we learned.

Example, gathered responses in a focus group. Used 8 prompts. Then created themes and categorized responses under each theme. Their themes were services, spaces, and support…but ours might be different. Their responses were all over the board, so then how do you move forward…

Group work; create 3 actionable outcomes based on the quantitative and qualitative research in this paper. Set boundaries as you think necessary. Keep track of your decision making process e.g., how did you choose what to do first/last?

In the group activity, we looked at a dataset and chose 3 actionable items. Now we are making a decision based on the analysis model assigned. Can be tricky to get from the data stage to the action stage. How do we figure out the priority piece- what can we do? What can’t we do?

With their focus groups with grad students, there was a space theme and several ideas came out of that- open classrooms for after hours use, longer study rooms checkouts, better maps, grad student virtual space, and grad student physical space.

Limiters- desire meets reality.

All possible limiters: time, money, space, power, relationships, personnel, policies. Short term limits: personnel, policies, relationships. Medium term limits, = money, relationships, power. Long term limits: space, relationships, money, personnel, power, and time. (this is on a slide in table format). So- looking at the request side by side with the limiters, here are what we can do short term, medium term, long term: for example, short term we can open classrooms after hours and lengthen study rooms checkouts. Medium term we can offer better maps and a grad student virtual space. Long term we can develop a grad student physical space.

Relationships, as a limiting factor, and important to understand as important for being able to proceed with some of these recommendations. Internal relationships (presentation space, study rooms, circ, doc delivery), college or unit (teaching, data analysis, job search), administrations (space, grad support…?). FMI: should add external.

Implementation timeline. Short term (use exhibiting spaces), medium (add virtual space and service), long term (add new spaces and services).

Analysis models:

1. SWOT TOWS: identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.

	External ops	External threats
Internal strengths	S o	ST
Internals weaknesses	WO	WT

 

1. Action Research

Cycle: observe, reflect, act, evaluate, modify, observe, reflect, act, evaluate, and modify….etc (encourages group work, requires you to be a practitioner in the field, comes from the field of education….e.g., a pretest that shows gaps/attitudes, and then make a change in the class practice to address those needs). Situate your own experience against those of other practitioners (reflect), then we act by implementing in the class, then we Evaluate- collect data about how the changes worked, then modify based on the evaluation…

 

Reflection important in this model. Based on what I’ve learned, do I now think…?

My mental “before” picture is different from my mental “after” picture in that… so we are reflecting before jumping into the modification phase.

 

Social science would ask “Does management style influence worker productivity?” Where action research would say “how do I improve my management style to encourage productivity?” So the action researcher situates themselves in the question. So when do you not use action research? When you want quantitative.

 

Using weighting factors to prioritize findings. Weighting scale; RANKING FACTORS.

(5)ESSENTIAL FACTOR

                (3) IMPORTANT FACTOR

                (1) WORTHY FACTOR

So write out action items as a need and then weight it.

Again, key is reflection, observation, assess alternative (environmental scan), review rankings, repeat.

1. Participatory Research

A type of action research, so if you read about it sometimes called participatory action research. Fundamentally about who has the right to speak about the issue that needs to be addressed, to gather data, and to act on the data. Direct contrast to having an outside expert . Systematic inquiry with the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied for the purposes of education….check NW Central for notes.

Community based, usually runs analysis of social problems. Oriented toward concrete community action. Roots are in liberation theology and social transformation, and used in first world nations, used especially in …

Community based participatory research (CBPR) both partners have invaluable roles:

• Community members keep the research – respectful, accessible, and socially relevant. Researchers keep research-scientificallly sound, academically relevant
• Stakeholders contribute and researchers contribute: define and design research (community relevance, scientific value). Implement research (accessible instruments, effective recruitment, appropriate recruitment and scientific rigor). Dissemination/action (publicity, community education, action, scholarly publication, accessible interpretation).

 

Ultimately, makes no difference if you take no action on it. So go for it and take action even if the time line is long.

 

Note- action research so similar to what is happening to evidence based research in medicine.

FMI: community based public safety

Notes from 2011 IL Summit

ASSESSMENT WORKGROUP:
MB, CCC = shared IL Gen Ed and WR Gen Ed overlap analysis, common assignment, 2 sample rubric ideas, and alternative language for describing IL concepts. Bryan’s question about any rubric = does it guide instruction for an instructor newly hired.
Eva, CCC = Efficacy of plagiarism tutorials. Wants assessment to influence what is done in the classroom.
Bryan, Linn-Benton CC = questions to Dorothy regarding the number of variables involved in assessing the impact of library instruction (e.g., takes place in the classroom, at the reference desk, we only see about 50% of students.
Kate, Lane CC = resources! Based on the sheer number of students in WR121 and 122 fall term alone, feels we are still a ways off from assessment.
Pam, PCC = track all lit instruction sessions. Of those students, did they register for the next class? Did they complete the next class? Can we get anything relevant out of it?
Note: writing instructors present read all of the sources their students cite.
Pam, PCC = student achievement of college core outcomes.
OSU = confidence level goes down as student learns more, so assessment sometimes shows the student learning less at the end of the instruction time (or at least reporting less confidence in their skills as they learn more about what is out there).
Nancy Knowles, EOU= pull data from capstone.
Jen, Lane CC = comment that assessment can show what is not happening rather than show that we’re doing it well. Gets at adjunct issue.
Bryan’s comment that we should invite faculty buddies to next Summit.
OSU pre and post test for WR121. Determines student’s impression of how they do research.  Pre is given in the first week, post is given in the 8^th week. OSU uses QualTricks (“like survey monkey on steroids”).  Question from Nancy- how do you make a connection from pre and post to the student’s product and what they are able to do? Stefanie (OSU) = spot check, random sample…Siskana- reliability and dependability is up in the air? Stefanie = so tie it to some other measurable assessment tool. This is used more for tweaking instruction rather than outcome assessment.
Bryan, Linn-Benton= “I search model”
Jen says traditional paper is still alive at Lane.
Stefanie = useful for them to start thinking about why did I choose what I did.
Pam = WR115 get precollege level. WR121 at PCC is not a research paper. Nancy says EOU sees WR 115 and WR121 as inviting students into academic discourse.
Nancy= WHERE OUR IL PARTNERS CAN HELP how to ask a good question, how to begin an inquiry process, how to engage in an inquiry process.
Siskanna, Lane = 115-227 sequence…pervasive, ongoing assessment program. IL will be the first criteria. So first iteration of 5-year plan. Collecting artifacts of what the IL instructor considers a final product (2 pieces of student work per instructor for each course taught). Lane has done the collection for fall. Using Moodle to submit or can submit hard copy to maintain anonymity. They’re in the third term of collection. Part and Full timer writing faculty will read the papers. Lane library toolkit. AACOU rubric- need an agreed upon reality. How many readers of each? Adjudication to resolve differences. Looking for patterns across courses.

ELLUMINATE. Nickolas and Linda = presentation on Elluminate. Had used teleconferencing and wanted a different technology…had an Elluminate license. Nick = current technology wasn’t satisfactory, culture of teleconferencing was already in place. Grant provided about $3500 which they used for release time. For trial they overloaded in student support and the payoff was worth it.  Links to training before hand. One instructor to troubleshoot while the other keeps teaching. Students help each other as well, not all communication had to be mediated through the instruction. Important to formalize manners/rules (e.g., raising the hand feature). Go back to instruction fundamentals …instruction without physical feedback from students. Record- students like being able to watch it if they couldn’t make it the first time. Students also found it useful for study groups. Question from Bob regarding boredom of watching a webinar. Mandatory attendance makes better attendance. Feedback had to take place in assignment design.

NEXT GEN REPORT OUT
Began with the assumption that the one shot is less effective. Note- in any model there will be elements that inhibit learning. Small group discussions. (Is there) an assumption that you can teach skills and not theory? Course assessment guides more effective than subject guides. Library presentation in a SMS. Ongoing. Think about  highly targeted 10 minute sessions. Menu approach- maybe faculty don’t know what you offer. Interview students in addition to faculty. Have faculty embed librarian into the syllabus. Integrated learning community. IL proficiencies are ambitious and more appropriate for 4 year grad and even then we would be happy. Students wouldn’t necessarily retain info in a one shot, but would create awareness of info and librarian.

TAKING CREDIT REPORT OUT
small group reviewed existing courses. Question the role of library 127 at each institution- at EOU as a retention device, at COCC in class 25 at a time, forced professional development, COCC = 1 and 2 credit 100 level courses are in demand.  List of values. List of reasons not to. List of strategies for developing and implementation. Sally M. regarding strategies. Target University Learning Outcomes (ULOs such as retention, enrollment, achievement). Faculty status or demonstrable knowledge expertise. Active on campus and helping depts. Get to know people. Talk to people who have developed courses. Get Gen Ed for course so makes it desirable. Collect measurable data. FUTURE CONVERSATIONS best practice for IL courses. Assessment of instruction and course. Evaluation and pedagogy of online and campus. Increased diversity. Assessment can be vital in justifying a  course before you offer it (to get it on the books) and after to show benefits. Show outcomes better met in quantitative way even if outcome is in another class. Q from Jen: logistics and trade offs (less time on ref desk). Theresa = job security. Could do w/in load or as extra job assignment. Donna from PCC got Deans from various campuses to pay for it. At EOU, student chooses course topic to focus on and the topic is often from another course. At COCC they use the grapevine…advised in if taking a writing class.  See links on IL Summit page, the password was given out at the meeting and can be obtained by contacting Cat Finney.

IL IN THE DESSERT REPORT OUT
GTA Jaime demo’d assignments embedded throughout the OSU course. Group will post those assignments. Technology as a delivery method- needs getting that info to the instructor. View tutorial (possibly prior to class). Tutorials and video in the class…media- how to use an e tool in class effectively. Use tech to train the trainer. More involved in assignment creation. Build in discussion in points. Relationship between library/librarian and instructor, and relationship between librarian and students. Databases seem to be the piece instructors are the least comfortable with teaching. Analyze rhetoric or language used and ID slant so ties into keyword. Bryan- sign off on online or branch equivalence and are we able to do that or are we sometimes expanding too fast to support. So- need for best practices.

CLOSING
Attendees asked to fill out evaluations. Contact ILAGO if interested in hosting next year. ILAGO Board meeting in the fall (invitation will go out to the larger group). ILAGO Board working on bylaws (Robert will take on coordination of that piece) then the ILAGO membership will be invited to give input/feedback and then a final draft will go to the membership for a vote. Suggestion that positions on board rotate between faculty from 2 and 4-year institutions. Fall meeting- the board meeting with IL reps and a working meeting. Bryan volunteered to draft letter of support for K-8/12 librarians in Salem Keizer area. Suggestion that ILAGO draft letter supporting MHCC and other cc’s laying off (or not replacing) librarians. Decision = one letter re K-8/12 initiative and position statement re impact of academic librarians.

Soapbox Poetry Reading May 10th

What I read from:
1. Gathering Moss: A Natural and Cultural History of Mosses (selections from chapter 6, An Affinity for Water)

2. All of Us: The Collected Poems of Raymond Carver (c1996)

• Fear
• Still Looking Out for Number One
• The Party
• My Death
• Mother
• What the Doctor Said
• Gravy
• Late Fragment

The best expected thing from giving a poetry reading: spending time with the poetry!

The best unexpected thing from giving a poetry reading: feeling the power of  the writing transcend my own shaking voice…getting a sense of the strength and integrity of the work and what happens when it is called up.

Scariest thing: shakey voice, breathless, trembling
Best remedy: Jan Van Stavern

2011 OR IL Summit, April 29th…register now!

Registration is open for the 2011 OR IL Summit.
PCC Sylvania is hosting the IL Summit this year. Registration is $25 general or $20 for a student and includes lunch. Visit the ILAGO site for more detail on the sessions and a link to the registration form.

Contact Michele Burke with questions or for help registering.

GetReal

 GetReal blog run by college student Nick Giampietro is intended to:

1.  inspire interest in science and engineering news
2. connect students with practical info on what it means to be an engineer
3. connect students with info on computer science and pre-engineering opportunities
4. keep high school students up-to-date on intriguing engineering-related news

Here’s the sentence that interests me on the blog-
“That’s why you’re here. GetReal is about Engineering as a mindset which can be applied to anything.” Hmm, I want to know more about this engineering mindset! Do we have any overlapping literacy interests here?

Bruce Schafer, Executive Director of , Engineering and Technology Industry Council writes the following:
 The blog focuses on extracurricular programs—including robotics clubs and programs like ORTOP and eCHAMP, current events, and a variety of other engineering and science subjects.   Nick’s posts, like “Xbox accessory ‘Kinect’ is a new fave of white-hat hackers,” are written for students and kept brief, each touching down on a fun contemporary subject and providing links to resources related to it.   Take a look at http://getreal.ous.edu/blog and encourage your college students to take a look too.   If you have direct or indirect connections to high school students, we’d appreciate your help in getting the word out to them as well.

We’re interested in connecting with more schools and school faculty around the state to help students stay connected with local opportunities. If you have a local story, or knowledge of an science- or engineering-related event that needs some publicity contact Nick.

OWEAC mtg May 7, 2010, PSU

1. Welcome from Marvin Kaiser, Dean of College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences. P-20 initiative, writing across the curriculum embedded in PSU University Studies (PSU spine starting with FYE). Integrating writing, professional development for PSU staff, proficiency based work emphasized…(FMI: similar to the IL embedding process).

2. Inspiration, introductions (Kate’s last mtg as Chair, Nancy stepping in, elections at end of meeting), position announcements, welcome new members.

3. Oregon rhetoric conference at PSU. About 8 publishing companies exhibiting.Vicki Tolar Burton giving keynote.

4. Info Lit Summit report: MT Hood: scaffolding throughout the curriculum, a touchstone assignment in every 115, 121, 122…
OSU- scaffolding and effort to build from level to level

5. grant writing for summer institute with workshops for writing teachers to stay current in the field. Nancy using Oregon Writing Project as a model because they are already doing a 16. 5 day institute, 20 teachers…etc. See handout from Nancy. Instructors from any discipline. dual credit theme…but don’t want to be limited to that as a theme for the whole 5 days. Small mission. (where would schools and individuals find the funding to attend?).Vicki works with her WIC on prof dev across the curriculum.

Maureen mentions that funding may be available from dual credit / dual enrollment sponsor sources.

Note from Eva- Oregon has signed on to the Achieve standards (see NCTE).

Nancy- vision of benefiting institution rather than benefiting classroom. So there would be an expectation of follow-up in that each participant would take knowledge back to the institute.

Kate thinking about making it regional- (e.g.,  SOU hosts and they invite people from that region (so no lodging cost). Mada asks how does that put us in contact statewide? So floating idea of going for a much larger grant and having simultaneous regions host activity and then regional groups contact each other during the week.

Idea- OWEAC presentation at WordStock

6. FINQ- PSU

7. On-going curricular projects:
WR 227- agreement that 227 reflects the OWEAC outcomes. Yeah! This can be crossed off of the list.
ENG 104-106 = language regarding optimal class size. Draft presented. Feedback and comments invited on wiki. Could also email feedback to the committee if uncomfortable posting on wiki.

8. Discussion around chair duties survey

9. Placement tests and scores. Note about Chemeketa. Chemeketa feels the beefier 4-credit course outcomes necessitate a beefier student…so! Our Compass placement numbers are 95-100. The numbers on the draft chart Vern handed out are outdated for Chemeketa (Eva has new numbers from Justus). Note- Rogue wanted everyone to take WR 115 and they were told students have to be able to place directly into WR 121 (a requirement of Compass and ACT). So, they opted to make most students tatke WR 115. Dramatically increases success rates and retention. Doyne says it is night and day between the students that go through WR 115 and those that go straight to WR 121.

WR 115 started as a college course. OWEAC went to work on it, came up with outcomes, and made it a college course. Clackamas kept it as a developmental course. Caroline noted that WR 115 could be revisited because she’s not sure it is a college level course- it does tend to be dev. ed…giving it to another department means transfer of FTE.  Rogue also mentioned that College Credit Now students have to pass a timed essay test (two chances to take) in order to receive credit for WR 121. Kate referenced study with results showing CCN and on campus WR 121 students performance in on-campus WR 122 and the CCN  students did as well if not better (note OWEAC had questions re methodology). With Lane- one HS will offer WR 115 (result of a three year conversation). SOU and Jan’s program very much like Running Start program in Washington? SOU said yes. Jan said Running Start offers quite a bit more.

Doyne would like WR115 to be required. Can’t require it, can’t have it as a prerequisite, but placement scores put many students into WR115. Note WR115 is a bridge class that starts remedial or dev ed but moves into college level.

“College Level Work for Underprepared Students” is how Nancy’s school talks about it. Nancy is also working on a system error at her school that makes struggling schools take 16 credits for financial aid because the dev ed class doesn’t count for financial aid. so students who struggle with 12 now are taking 16.

Kate mentions study- students in dev ed mainstreamed into and placed with WR 121 ready students. Attrition rate went way down for those students. However, that school had a bottle neck that placed students in dev ed more rigourously and broadly, so it isn’t an accurate comparison to Oregon.

Vern- also have a bottleneck at Rogue so people can’t take many classes until they have their reading and writing prerequisites. Some worries expressed about colleges lowering scores to keep students who might otherwise get discourages.

Comment from Vicki Tolar Burton- she askes WR 121 students who took it in high school? Then has them write that with a couple of sentences about what was covered in the class? Also, she asks, if you took it off campus, what did you miss? And several have said they missed the library piece. Some said “but we have ebsco at the high school so we don’t need the library”. Note to self- need education about database access because they all have access to this.

1992 College English- referenced by Greg.
Debate about using literature in college writing. Look this up and forward to list. We may use this for our fall reading.

Interesting- from Jan- proficiency based instructor who teaches two pages two pages two pages. those students do a great job on SAT and ACT essay tests but don’t know how to incorporate information, don’t know how to revise at all, don’t know how to engage in an extended writing process.

chances of getting a degree if reading scores in dev ed is 15%…staggeringly low. so huge need to teach reading comprehension. Think about this from library perspective.

8. IL Issues pre and post test subcommittee formed to work on IL pre and post test for WR 121. work over the summer.

9. Transfer question. What happens when student comes in with class that addresses most but not all of the 4-credit outcomes, specifically the IL outcomes.  One concern is attrition. Lane is going to come up with a series of questions advisors can ask students about their writing courses. If they say “no” to IL components, then they would be directed to the library course.  Subcommittee this summer can think about the one credit library course and work on test- collect data about testing instrument by using it on WR 121 students who have taken the IL infused course..and gather feedback about the test (e.g., student focus groups). Eva mentioning again our conversation about faculty prof dev in IL so they feel comfortable instructing. Kate recommends we track attrition in the new courses and compare it with data on past courses. At Lane- faculty have reported higher attrition (but this is before ACCUPlacer) but Kate still expects we’ll see more students failing.

My Question: Relationship to library community- creating these tutorials- my suggestion: that OWEAC work on describing what is realistic to expect from each course in terms of IL (pre-needs and post-skill). OWEAC small group works to describing what IL looks like at each course- so begining the articulation work.

Concern expressed that at some schools very poorly prepared students are entering college because they don’t have employement options and it is a way to get financial aid.

Eva – point that it is irresponsible for 4 years to continue to train rhet/comp faculty or specifically community college faculty when there are already 150 applicants for each job.

10. Dual Credit Survey discussion. General agreement that PSU is doing a nice job running their dual credit program (NACA ?abrev?) and Sally- the woman running it is doing a great job. So- look at PSU for a healthy model of dual credit program administration.

WORK GROUPS on STUDENT PAPERS

Nancy- all of the students that went through K-12 in the united states have been assessed out of their own voice. Our job to recuperate that voice.

Article Discussion:

Bizzell, Patricia. (2009). Opinion: Composition Studies Saves the world! College English, 72 (2). Nov. 2009.

Greg: Fish ‘ save the world…’ says don’t get carried away with saving the world in the classroom. “don’t need to care about diversity of faculty on campus if we are all involved in truth seeking.” Bizzell counters that when students walk into class they encounter HER. Greg, in class, went into an example from his personal life and then realized he wasn’t saving the world on his own time because it wasn’t his time.

Eva: no one is going to step into the classroom and only teach rhetoric, just like the students all come with their own baggage. Eva says she does invite controversial things into the class because it gets them writing and thinking.

Nancy: we do students a disservice when we don’t acknowledge that inequities exist and don’t prepare them to face race/class/gender issues. When we talk about that in class we make those issue explicit so that students can address them and that’s part of our job. They exist, it is a fact. Sees Fish as arrogant to suggest everyone can get at the same sentence.

Mada: can’t leave it at making the situation explicit- have to then give the student the tools and ability to address the situation effectively. Gives example- go in, raise controversy, then leave. Equally our responsibility to give them something with which to battle with and in this area it is reasoning and thinking and writing.

Maureen: water drought issues in her region and environmentalists…so she saw this examples as ideal to show that it isn’t just her opinion, but a real issue. She brought representatives in from both sides and they constructed their positions. Then she said I’m not going to tell you where I stand on this issue- I want you, the student, to construct your own position.

Jillane: Fish says we can shut down ideas like denying Nazism, but she has to do that frequently.

Maureen: thinks Fish would say that if it is just about the form and not the function, than anyone can teach writing.

Vern: why does Fish get to draw the line at Hol.denial but not many of these other powerful concerns like gay marriage, blatant discrimination in Arizona…many others. We don’t cram ideas down their throats, we give them the tools to find their own voice.

Maureen: if all about form and not function, no critical thinking, then people in HS where much more controlled by administration, then they are the safest people to teach WR 121 because they won’t go there (gives example of parent cutting naked pictures out of textbook).

EvaJ: example of first teaching job where she was carefully paired with another faculty who had “content.” As if writing doesn’t have content.

Jillanne: feels like Fish is inviting a clear definition of what we do as writing instructors. Thinks this is valuable because there is wide-spread differentiation across the discipline in terms of instruction. Does our knowledge of the relations of race and gender and $- is that rhetoric or does it go beyond? Group answer= that is rhetoric.

Vicki Tolar Burton: student teacher’s goal was to get the students to problematize their own internal workings their own foundation, their unquestioned assumptions. Vicki saw it going on but wasn’t supervising, but she thinks there really is a continuum and it didn’t seem to be ok- it seemed outside and not a good use of his power in the classroom. Group notes that Bizzell says it is a matter of degree.

Nancy: Fish seems to talk about it like language is a pure form that can be outside of politics, language..etc. She sees the writing series functioning to introduce students to the institution and discussion about those contexts is part of her job/role in introducing them to the culture.

Doyne- comments about no pure language.

Mada: Fish’s old book “Is there a text in this class?”

Vicki: suspicious that he’s doing it to … he’s sort of well known for writing things to the NYTimes and it seems he’s catering to a mindset that makes him a hero against the academy (thinking of very recent things- FMi- check for these pieces). Playing devils advocate- Mada suggests.

Piece in Chronicle = attack on first year strategy (Vicki).

Kate: reminded, she was in the copy room, colleague commented “oh there you are, you’re so focused on skills….we talk about ideas in my class.” Kate said that’s a false binary to suggest skill discussion doesn’t have idea. What happens if you get to ideas that they never translate into writing.

Elections: Kate stepping down. Nancy starting 2 year period. Now asking for people to nominate themselves. Jillanne is Chair elect! Eva chairs the secretarial segment.

Next year’s meetings:
Nancy wants to host at La Grande in the fall, probably 2011.
OSU for Feb. meeting 2011.
Ashland- SOU = Fall 2010 October 15th.
Spring May 13, 2011 options = Clackamas

Clackamas going through radical division shift and restructuring.
Chemeketa for winter of 2012.