Meeting Minutes

CRC #3 

11/21/23

Attendance: Emily Schnee. Rob Cowan, Matthew Gartner, Sheri Weinstein, Carl Schlachte, Hope Parisi, Maxine Krenzel, Laura Nadel, Megan O’Neill, Dan Perrone, Steve Amarnick, Donna-Lyn Washington, Mary Lynn Navarro, Mike Rozza, Joshua Wright, Tisha Ulmer

Minutes from 10/18 approved

Voting on Modifications to Proposed Revised English 2400 CLOs 

Note that voting totals are in parentheses and include votes from Patty and Sara who couldn’t attend the meeting but voted remotely. Clear winners are highlighted and notes about current changes appear below. 

“With an emphasis on public/community writing” 

1. 1. Keep (5)
   2. Delete (6)
   3. Change to “including public community writing” (6)
   4. Keep but include examples in parenthesis (0)

Note: Voting on this wasn’t definitive, but I realized that replacing “with an emphasis…” with “including…” would mean that the exact same phrase appeared in the first two outcomes in this section. I’m just deleting for now. 

“Setting”

1. 1. Keep as is (5)
   2. Change to “situation” (7)
   3. Delete (3)

“Including material obtained through primary research”

1. 1. Keep as is (9)
   2. Delete (1)
   3. Delete and change to “…evaluate relevant primary and secondary research materials” (8)

Note: Voting on this wasn’t definitive but most people wanted to keep the basic idea and option c expresses the same things more efficiently.

That includes primary 

1. 1. Keep as is (17)
   2. Delete (1)

“Select and use strategies for reading, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, rewriting, rereading, and editing” 

1. 1. Keep as is (5)
   2. Change to “select and use appropriate strategies for research-based writing” (13)

Note: My only concern with this change was that any reference to a revision process dropped out entirely. I’m suggesting this slight modification: “Select and use appropriate strategies and writing processes for research-based writing.”

Voting on Revised Comp II Description (and Mission Statement) 

Mission Statement on the Comp. Website:

1. 1. Delete from Comp II page (0)
   2. Create a new page above Comp I and II and move it there (8)
   3. Create a new page above Comp I and II that articulates the logic behind the composition sequence and includes some of this material (9)

Note: Options b and c are similar, so I think we can move forward with a small group to develop a new overarching statement for Comp I and II, using some of the material from this mission statement.

“Public Genres” 

1. 1. Keep as is (sample assignments and syllabi will illustrate) (11)
   2.  Add parenthesis with examples (0)
   3. Add parenthesis with examples of both academic and public genres (3
   4. “Students engage in primary and secondary research” 
      1. Keep as is (3)
      2. Change to “students engage with” (7)
      3. Change to “students engage in different kinds of research methods” (5)

“Socially-relevant” 

1. 1. Keep as is (3)
   2. Delete
   3. Change to “socially engaged” (5)
   4. Change to “community oriented” (7)
   5. Change to something else (0)

Note: This was close, so maybe we should revisit?

Gerunds…

1. 1. Keep as is (2)
   2. Change to “through the various processes involved in research-based writing” (13)

Discussion of winning English 24 essays

• People seemed to think these were in line with the new CLOs, such as use various types of resources; use of personal material/primary data; engagement with a social issue
• People noted the social science approach in the gym membership essay and talked about research methods. How much can/should a writing class approximate disciplinary writing?
• There was some question about the length of both essays and how much space they took up in the semester; Carl said students spent about 8 weeks on his. This is different from the current curriculum guideline which suggests several projects.
• People noted that these assignments suggested that students were pursuing different topics and possibly taking different approaches to finding and presenting research. 
• People expressed appreciation for the work involved in guiding students toward producing such exemplary work; there was some conversation about how these were most likely outliers and not typical; should we look at average or lower-performing student work as well?