Faculty Resources
Lower-Division Writing Courses
Students can fulfill the lower-division writing requirement in a number of ways: by transfering in credit from another four-year institution or community college or by successfully completing the English Composition sequence, the Humanities Core Course, or the First-Year Integrated Program sequence. Information about courses and writing requirements for these courses and sequences can be found on their program websites.
Upper-Division Writing Courses
All students at UCI must complete the lower-division writing requirement and take an upper-division writing course, usually in their major course of study. Faculty across the disciplines teach these "W" courses, and all "W" courses are approved by the UCI Faculty Senate before being designated as satisfying the General Education upper-division writing requirement. Proposals for "W" courses are reviewed regularly by the Council on Educational Policy, which considers the recommendation of the Writing Advisory Group, in consultation with the Campus Writing Coordinator.
The Teaching, Learning, and Technology Center (TLTC)
The TLTC's mission is to improve the quality of teaching and learning through pedagogical development for faculty and teaching assistants; to promote the use of innovative teaching techniques, including the use of instructional technology; and to foster campuswide conversation about enhancing student learning through innovative teaching.
Resources for Your Students
The Office of the Campus Writing Coordinator is in the process of developing a Center for Excellence in Writing and Communication Studies, which will provide a range of writing skills development opportunities for students. In the meantime, you can advise your students to seek assistance with their writing by directing them to the Peer Tutors in Writing and Library
Research or the Learning & Academic Resource Center (LARC). We recommend that you make the existence of such services known to your students on your course syllabi. You can also download a flyer about the Peer Tutoring program to give to students.
Writing Across the Curriculum Clearinghouse
The WAC Clearinghouse offers a tremendous set of resources for faculty who teach both writing across the curriculum and writing in the disciplines. Research reports and scholarly studies complement practical advice in this must-see website.
Plagiarism
The UCI campus policy on plagiarism can be found on the Registrar's website, under "Academic Honesty Policy": http://www.reg.uci.edu/navigation/policies.html. Please share this policy with your students. We recommend including a statement on plagiarism in all of your syllabi.
If you encounter plagiarism, please see the Division of Undergraduate Education's new website on "Academic Honesty": http://honesty.uci.edu/. This site contains links to the forms you will need to fill out, as well as resources for determining your next steps when you have found instances of plagiarism.
We also recommend the following sites to help you develop curricula that teach students about citing sources properly; they also offer tips on helping students develop information literacy. REMEMBER: We need to communicate with students about WHY we are asking them to consult "outside" sources. Doing so will help them understand how scholars, academics, and citizens construct knowledge and participate effectively--and ethically--in the many "conversations" of the academy in particular and our society in general.
Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices
http://www.wpacouncil.org/node/9
Sponsored by the Council of Writing Program AdministratorsUnderstanding Plagiarism
http://www.indiana.edu/~tedfrick/plagiarism/
Set up by School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, this site includes a quiz to test students' understanding and examples of how to recognize plagiarism (including a flow chart!)An Instructor's Guide to Preventing, Confronting, and Reporting Plagiarism
http://sja.ucdavis.edu/files/InGuidePlag.html
Designed by Office of Student Judicial Affairs, University of California, Davis
Guidelines for Upper-Division Writing Courses
The Campus Writing Coordinator and the Council on Educational Policy wish to encourage great diversity among upper-division writing course offerings, and the CWC works regularly with faculty across the university to develop, implement, and assess a variety of writing and writing-intensive courses.
All "W' courses must meet the following guidelines:
1. Papers should be required totaling 4,000 words or more of finished work. Working drafts of the papers should also be submitted for an initial reading and should be returned to the student with useful feedback for revision.
2. The course should include instruction in the kinds of writing commonly practiced in your discipline. Discussion of writing and activities relating to writing should be integrated throughout the course and indicated on the course syllabus.
3. The use of a writing guide or reference book should be integrated throughout the course.
4. If TAs rather than faculty will read papers, the TAs should be appropriately trained, and their work should be closely monitored by the instructor.
5. The Writing Advisory Group recommends that upper-division writing courses be staffed by permanent faculty.
6. The Writing Advisory Group recommends maintaining a ratio of 20 (or fewer) students to one faculty member or TA.
Proposing an Upper-Division Writing Course
If you are
considering proposing an upper-division writing course, please do the following:
1. Contact the CWC for a proposal packet.
2. Work closely with the CWC Office to think through your course and prepare your proposal.
3. Invite the CWC to your department to discuss the place of the proposed "W" course within your department's major courses of study.
4. Follow the above guidelines carefully.
5. Submit your proposal to the Council on Educational Policy (CEP)/Academic Senate.
6. Be attentive to any revisions requested by CEP. The CWC can help you work through a revision of your proposal, if needed.
7. Work with the CWC to develop an appropriate assessment plan and TA training module, if needed.
8. Stay in touch with the CWC! We're here to help you.
Upper-Division Writing Rubric
We recommend use of the following rubric as you prepare your upper-division writing course. The rubric focuses on four major areas: critical thinking and analysis, the use of evidence and/or research, development and structure, and generic and disciplinary conventions. Adapt it for your particular course needs and share it with your students. Your feedback on the rubric is welcome.
Category 1:
Critical Thinking & Analysis4: Mastery: The approach to the assigned topic of study is insightful, and/or creative, persuasive, unique, and worth developing; the level of thinking/analysis is sophisticated; the ideas are clearly communicated with focus and specificity; the topic is considered/discussed from several facets or perspectives; the limitations of the argument or insights posed is made clear; the writer uses discipline-specific methods for producing knowledge; the content seems expertly tailored to the disciplinary audience
3: Good: The approach is acceptable, reasonable, thoughtful; the level of thinking/analysis is appropriate; the ideas offered are usually specific and focused, some are insightful, usually communicated clearly; the writer shows an awareness of other facets or perspectives, or of some of the limitations of the argument or insights posed; the writer seems to understand the disciplinary discourse and has taken some care with including content that is appropriate to the disciplinary audience
2: Some Evidence: The approach is adequate (even if barely so); some evidence of thinking/analysis, or an attempt at analysis, is evident; some of the ideas offered are clearly delineated, thought-through, and appropriate to the task; the writer attempts to show awareness of at least one other facet or perspective, or shows at least some awareness of the need to recognize potential limitations of the argument or insights posed; the writer seems aware of the disciplinary discourse and has included content that is relevant to the disciplinary audience
1: Insufficient Evidence: The approach is inadequate or indeterminable; very little evidence of critical thinking and analysis are evident; although some of the ideas may be worthwhile, the level of insight and clarity of presentation are lacking; the writer does not take into account other facets or perspectives, or does so in an inappropriate or simplistic manner; the thinking lacks focus and clarity, but may illustrate misconceptions; little or no evidence of awareness of disciplinary audience
Category 2:
Use of Evidence/Research4: Mastery: Uses evidence/sources appropriately and effectively, with clear understanding of the disciplinary audience’s expectations; considers (if appropriate) of the previous knowledge generated within the discipline (e.g., literature review); evidence/sources used help develop and exemplify the overall argument/purpose of the writer; evidence/sources are clearly and correctly represented and smoothly integrated into writer’s argument/purpose; correct and appropriate use of citation methods for the disciplinary genre
3: Good: Uses evidence/sources appropriately and sometimes effectively, with understanding of the disciplinary audience’s expectations; shows awareness (if appropriate) the previous knowledge generated within the discipline (e.g., literature review); evidence/sources used generally contribute to the overall argument/purpose of the writer; evidence/sources are usually represented with clarity and with no misreading; evidence/sources are smoothly integrated into writer’s argument/purpose (writer controls the ideas, the sources do not); correct and appropriate use of citation methods for the disciplinary genre
2: Some Evidence: Some evidence/sources have been used appropriately, in a way that furthers the writer’s purpose/argument; some evidence of disciplinary expectations for sources/research are evident; evidence/sources are presented with some degree of clarity, although some misreading or simplistic reading may be evident; the evidence/sources may overwhelm the writer’s own voice and purpose; evidence/sources are usually integrated into the prose; some awareness of the disciplinary genre’s expectations for citation and quotation are evident.
1: Insufficient Evidence: Evidence/sources, if present at all, are often used inappropriately or simplistically; misreading of the sources may be evident; the writing shows little or no evidence of the discipline’s expectations for presenting evidence and using sources; evidence/sources are mis-matched with the writer’s purpose within the prose; little or no awareness or presence of citation and documentation standards for the discipline
Category 3:
Development & Structure4: Mastery: The prose exhibits a clear articulation of the genre/discipline’s methods of organizing written discourse; the organization is apparent, coherent, and contributes to the overall goals; the insightful, specific, focused development of the main purpose/thesis is effectively organized in paragraphs or sections (as appropriate to the genre/discipline); sophisticated transitional devices often develop one idea from the previous one or identify their logical relations; the reader is effortlessly guided through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas
3: Good: The prose illustrates the writer’s understanding of the genre/discipline’s methods of organizing written discourse; the organization is usually apparent, coherent, and contributes to the overall goals; the development of ideas is sometimes insightful, usually specific and focused, following a logical progression; appropriate transitions connect the ideas and show relations between them; the reader is guided through the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas
2: Some Evidence: The prose sometimes illustrates the writer’s understanding of the genre/discipline’s methods of organizing written discourse; the organization is usually apparent, and in some cases, contributes to the overall goals; the development of ideas is sometimes insightful, specific, focused, and logical; some transitional devices are employed to connect the ideas; the reader can follow the chain of reasoning or progression of ideas
1: Insufficient: The prose does not clearly illustrate the writer’s understanding of the genre/discipline’s methods of organizing written discourse; organization is random, simplistic or inappropriately sequential, and rarely (if ever) contributes to the overall goals; some development of ideas is evident, but there is little insight, focus or logic; the writing lacks internal coherence, using few or inappropriate transitional devices; the reader has difficulty following the progression of the reasoning or ideas
Category 4:
Generic & Disciplinary Conventions4: Mastery: The writing is styled and eloquent, with an easy flow, rhythm, and cadence; sentences have clear purpose and varied structure; sentences and paragraphing are complex enough to show skill with a wide range of rhetorical, disciplinary, or generic conventions; the writer chooses words for their precise meanings and uses an appropriate level of specificity, illustrating his/her facility with the discipline’s discourse; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and paragraphing) enhance overall readability and purpose; almost entirely free of errors, evidence of careful editing and proofreading
3: Good: The writing is appropriately styled and has an easy flow, rhythm, and cadence; sentences are purposeful and varied in structure; sentences and paragraphing show an appropriate use of rhetorical, disciplinary, or generic conventions; the writer usually chooses words for their precise meanings and uses an appropriate level of specificity, illustrating his/her understanding of the discipline’s discourse; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and paragraphing) contribute to overall purpose; almost free of errors, evidence of editing and proofreading; when errors do occur, they do not detract from readability
2: Some Evidence: The writing illustrates some aspects of polished style and rhythm appropriate to the discipline/genre; sentences are varied in structure and sometimes show the writer’s understanding of how to use rhetorical, disciplinary, or generic conventions; the writer sometimes chooses words for their precise meanings and some level of specificity is evident; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and paragraphing) contribute to overall purpose; errors may occur, but they usually do not detract from readability
1: Insufficient Evidence: The writing illustrates no (or very little) ability to use polished style and rhythm; sentences often lack purpose, with little variety in structure; sentences and paragraphing show a lack of understanding of how to use rhetorical, disciplinary, or generic conventions; word choice is often inappropriate and generalized, showing little understanding of disciplinary discourse; mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar, usage, and paragraphing) detract (or rarely contribute to) overall purpose; errors occur throughout, illustrating an inability to control language or a severe lack of editing and proofreading